graybalanced

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 11, 2009

Comments

Total: 1108, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

maljo@inreach.com: $500 seems a bit pricy.

Not really pricey if you know what you are comparing it to.

$500 has been the list price of the ColorMunki for many years, because like this device, it can calibrate multiple devices, not just your monitor. (Although as others are pointing out here, this is not exactly the same.)

If you wanted to spend $200 or less, the story is the same as it has been: You get a calibrator that can only calibrate your screen and not other devices.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 23:29 UTC
In reply to:

alfredsspekis: When one considers the cost and upgrades from the first lightroom it was never a cheap excercise

LR was actually a cheap exercise, in photography terms.

When Lightroom 1 came out, it competed with Apple Aperture. (Some thought Lightroom copied Aperture's design.) But Lightroom didn't copy the price: Aperture was $499. Lightroom came in at $299 and forced Apple to lower their price.

I think the Lightroom upgrades were $79. There were only 5 of those upgrades in the history of LR, from versions 2 through 6. Total cost of buying Lightroom 1 through 6 was $694, then. For 10 years...that's cheap! Remember when a single new copy of Photoshop was $699?

$694...that's less than any of the camera bodies I bought, and those usually don't stay in service for 10 years. I have bought multiple lenses that cost more than that.

Some unhappy LR users are going to MacPhun. I get emails from them all the time asking to upgrade to this year's version for $99. That's more than LR.

But maybe that's why so many are unhappy. Standalone LR used to be the cheap way to go, and we're losing it.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

saiko: Adobe's stranglehold has to end.
Google should dump some money to create free and open source alternatives to Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom, Indesign and put Adobe out of it's misery.

Realistically, all of these companies are in it for the money. The same way the majority of us go to work for the money. Few of us want to give away our time for free. Adobe, Apple, and Google have all done both very admirable things and things that seem outright greedy, but in the end they are all multi-billion dollar companies with stockholders and that is going to limit how much more virtuous any one of them is more than another.

At least Google sold Nik to Dx0 today. And that's no different an example than any of the others. The other day Dx0 was being criticized in the forums for questionable methodologies for their lens testing scores, today they're a hero for rescuing Nik from the dead software purgatory at Google. And so it goes.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 23:15 UTC
On article My experience at an Instagram influencer party (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bobthearch: I don't understand any of this, but it seems weird.
So it's people with lots of instagram followers posing with consumer products?

The reason they post with consumer products is because they either are being paid to put that brand on Instagram (product placement), which is how many Instagrammers make money, or, they want to get one of those contracts so they are showing that they can look good doing it.

Of course, there's only room for so many "brand ambassadors," so within a couple of years maybe 80% of the young people at that party will have to go get a real job.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 20:46 UTC
In reply to:

saiko: Adobe's stranglehold has to end.
Google should dump some money to create free and open source alternatives to Photoshop, Illustrator, Lightroom, Indesign and put Adobe out of it's misery.

Ha ha...Google? You want Google to save us? You need to brush up on history. Google already bought the entire photo product lines of Nik and Picasa, and what happened to them?

The reason Google bought them was to do EXACTLY what Adobe did: Use former desktop photo software as a starting point to build out cloud-based photo software. That's where all the code went that Google bought, to create cloud-based Google Photos. Google and Adobe have exactly the same goals for photography, provide a cloud-based "photos on any device" service to keep people in their bigger cloud ecosystem. Same goals as Apple and Amazon.

The original desktop applications Google bought? No longer developed.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

photomikeleth: It is simple, Adobe is a business, they will keep doing something till they do not make enough money on it then it will be gone. They only care about us as customers as long as they can get money from us, they are not our friends or family and they will go a different direction anytime they want!

Reality check here...the statement "Adobe is a business, they will keep doing something till they do not make enough money on it then it will be gone. They only care about us as customers as long as they can get money from us, they are not our friends or family"

applies to any commercial alternative you will choose. On1, Dx0, MacPhun, Affinity are not charities. They will make their software as long as they can get money from you. All of them. They will adapt and evolve their products to where they believe their market is. Every one of them.

They could get dropped like Aperture. Or they can get bought like Nik or Picasa, two companies whose software will never be updated again.

If you truly do not want to be left behind when your suppliers change course, you should only be using open source software. But even those projects sometimes fail to be maintained.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 20:35 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1633 comments in total)
In reply to:

graybalanced: Insightful article, not just clickbait…well done.

I wonder if DPReview will need to start adding a page to their review section for cloud-based photo software, evaluating the reliability, speed, and security of the cloud services underpinning these types of products. Given recent headlines, we should all be especially concerned about the security history of these companies, how often breaches happen, how they respond, etc.

@JimJulian I am well aware that the software is installed locally. I remind people of this all the time. What you're forgetting is that the new Lightroom CC defaults to uploading and storing all your photos into the cloud. This has obvious benefits, but it means that you should now be concerned with the security of the photo storage. If you do client work and it automatically all goes to the cloud, you do not want a security breach to result in your client's confidential images being released across the Internet.

To answer "what breaches are you talking about". In addition to the server breach above that released millions of user emails to hackers and spammers: There is a long history of Adobe Flash security vulnerabilities, and another long history of Adobe PDF vulnerabilities. And we can add one more to the pile:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/09/in-spectacular-fail-adobe-security-team-posts-private-pgp-key-on-blog/

We need to know our photos are safe.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 22:27 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1633 comments in total)

Insightful article, not just clickbait…well done.

I wonder if DPReview will need to start adding a page to their review section for cloud-based photo software, evaluating the reliability, speed, and security of the cloud services underpinning these types of products. Given recent headlines, we should all be especially concerned about the security history of these companies, how often breaches happen, how they respond, etc.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 23:45 UTC as 496th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

pdelux: I thought Adobe once said that Lightroom will always be offered as a non-subscription option.

Adobe cannot be trusted. Their Security practices have always been questionable. Now they want us to upload all our photos to the cloud. Queue data breach.

I am pretty sure the word they have used is "indefinitely." Which does not mean forever, except as wishful thinking.

Everyone saw this coming.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 23:27 UTC
In reply to:

Sezano: Does Instagram own your photos once posted there?

The license you grant them is not unlimited. It's similar to what you agree to on any website, like when you post images on DPreview:

"We acknowledge that...copyright and ownership of any uploaded image...remains yours. With respect to…content you submit…you grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable and fully sublicensable right to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform, translate, create derivative works from and publicly display such content throughout the world in any medium…you grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to use, distribute, reproduce, publicly perform, and to publicly display such content on the Web Site or any of our affiliates web sites or mobile applications. The license…exists only for as long as you choose to keep your photographic content content on the Web Site.

The last sentence is important: On reputable web sites, the license ends when you take off your content.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 23:47 UTC
In reply to:

Sezano: Does Instagram own your photos once posted there?

It is clearly spelled out in the terms for you. Own, no. License, yes. You have to understand the difference.

"Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a...license "

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 23:24 UTC
In reply to:

composed: Correct me if I am wrong but isn't Instagram for posting snaps from a phone...?

It was supposed to be for in-the-moment snaps, yes.

But if you take a look at many pro Instagram feeds, there are images that simply could not have been taken with a phone. These photographers are using Instagram as a high profile portfolio, so they're pushing photos shot on DSLR/m43/medium format onto their phones and uploading to Instagram from there. That's why this type of app has an appeal.

Organizations like Magnum Photos and NASA have Instagram feeds. You will almost never see a pic shot on a phone on those feeds. Magnum shows decades of images shot on B&W and slide film, and NASA shows astro images shot from spacecraft imagers.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 23:22 UTC
On article Here's why your beloved film SLR is never going digital (289 comments in total)
In reply to:

AndersSJ: It would make much more sense to develop a fully automatic film development "processor", with digital scanner, that fits into a billingham bag.

Just add film and water and retrieve your scanned images in 15 minutes.

The chemicals comes in a Nespresso style capsule.

When I was in school I really wanted a Daylab self-contained enlarger. You could take this light-sealed unit into a sunny field and make prints.

https://www.instantoptions.com/faqs/daylab/#image-499

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 23:17 UTC
In reply to:

graybalanced: Lots of people making fun of this, but it's actually not the first, but the third (as far as I know) app of this type out there. I have not bought any of these apps yet, but it might help overcome a disadvantage of Lightroom in that unlike Photoshop, you cannot move all the controls off the main screen to see the image bigger. With apps like this, you can close the Develop controls on the main screen and run them from the iPad.

The concept of iPad as control surface is not new, especially if you are a musician. In music they have found these types of "make my iPad useful" apps to be worthy.

This is also why there is software out there to convert existing hardware MIDI controllers into Lightroom controllers. There's a market for it.

@Roman see: https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/kb/color-faq.html

The first answer goes into detail about the color rendering in the different modules.

I would not call it "completely useless." Especially with the sheer volume of images that get published to sRGB (web, video) these days, the color rendering of the non-Develop windows seems suitable enough. Also, I do not often do color judgments on the secondary monitor, I use it mostly for Grid and Survey where color accuracy is not the highest priority.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 23:30 UTC
In reply to:

graybalanced: Lots of people making fun of this, but it's actually not the first, but the third (as far as I know) app of this type out there. I have not bought any of these apps yet, but it might help overcome a disadvantage of Lightroom in that unlike Photoshop, you cannot move all the controls off the main screen to see the image bigger. With apps like this, you can close the Develop controls on the main screen and run them from the iPad.

The concept of iPad as control surface is not new, especially if you are a musician. In music they have found these types of "make my iPad useful" apps to be worthy.

This is also why there is software out there to convert existing hardware MIDI controllers into Lightroom controllers. There's a market for it.

@Roman Korcek yes, you can move the image to another screen, but only by using the Secondary Display function, which as I understand it uses a less precise color rendering than the Develop window itself.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 23:18 UTC

Lots of people making fun of this, but it's actually not the first, but the third (as far as I know) app of this type out there. I have not bought any of these apps yet, but it might help overcome a disadvantage of Lightroom in that unlike Photoshop, you cannot move all the controls off the main screen to see the image bigger. With apps like this, you can close the Develop controls on the main screen and run them from the iPad.

The concept of iPad as control surface is not new, especially if you are a musician. In music they have found these types of "make my iPad useful" apps to be worthy.

This is also why there is software out there to convert existing hardware MIDI controllers into Lightroom controllers. There's a market for it.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2017 at 23:24 UTC as 22nd comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

runbei99: Is it true, as a Fry's supervisor told me, that it's best to buy drives no larger than 3 TB, because if the drive fails you'll need one or more equal-capacity drive to do an efficient restore?

Hope someone can clarify this, as I'll soon purchase another large backup drive.

The Fry's dude is technically correct, but the fact that it's 12TB is irrelevant.

If you need __TB of storage, you buy at least three __TB drives. One for storage, (at least) two more for rotated complete backups. Regardless of capacity.

It's true if you need 1TB, and it's still true if you need 12TB. If you need to store 11.5TB of data in one place, you're not going to buy a 4TB drive (unless you're RAIDing them). You get the 12TB drive plus two more for cloned full backups.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2017 at 23:27 UTC
In reply to:

SDreamer: Being of east Asian decent, I look forward to see how well this works.

Given recent trends across the entire software industry, there is a pretty good chance that this software was actually updated by Asians themselves.

(Or at least, India)

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 23:27 UTC
In reply to:

Greg VdB: "Can open closed eyes" - Funeral photography will never be the same...

(right, I'm off to wash my mouth with soap now)

Well, somebody's got to put the "fun" back in "funeral"...

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 23:25 UTC
In reply to:

dquangt: Wait, so they had the previous version that's only been available for about a year (way less I think) that was practically unusable for the first few months it was out due to ridiculous bugs and errors, and missing features and they are already asking for users to PAY $80 for this updated version?

WTH?

The problem is that the original poster (dquangt) is not happy with the current version, therefore it is inadequate to "keep using" if he stops paying. If the bugs are only fixed in the next major version and not in a free update, that means, to get the fixes, he has to pay another $80.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 20:32 UTC
Total: 1108, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »