Travis Butler

Travis Butler

Lives in United States Lenexsa, KS, United States
Joined on Sep 18, 2014

Comments

Total: 46, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

io rep: "will always be remembered"

no.

"as innovative imaging devices"

not making an actual product that sold makes it "potentially" innovative but didnt innovate anything since it never sold.

‘Innovative’ kinda implies ‘successful’, on at least one front. If you try something new and different and it doesn’t work, that’s not innovation.

Light’s two products - the L16 and the Nokia 9 - were commercial failures. But they were also technological failures; the L16’s pictures were frankly unacceptable, visibly patchy with low and high resolution bits scattered throughout the image. And the Nokia 9 was outperformed by smartphones with more conventional camera modules.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2020 at 14:20 UTC
In reply to:

techjedi: New owner, new design. Maybe use a new brand name? I think this brand is burned up at this point. Maybe some people are brave enough to try and buy these.

@techjedi More to the point, from what I can see the net SE disaster was big news for a little while, then vanished into the ether with most people writing it off as 'company tried to take advantage of classic name and failed.'

The classic brand name is what lingers in memory; the ripoff artist didn't tarnish it permanently because they never produced crappy product that hung around to remind us of it (see all the crap that came out with the Polaroid name on it in the 90's and 00's).

And while the Trioplan fever seems to have died down a little, a quick check of eBay shows they're still selling for $600 and up. That's what's driving the brand impression at this time - not a failed exploitation attempt.

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2020 at 01:48 UTC
In reply to:

Goodmeme: I've never flown a drone. As a consumer I would be pretty annoyed to find out what I just paid for flew off into an airport on its own.

The manufacturer should be penalized imo, not (or certainly not only) the owner. It is unrealistic to expect consumers to be ace pilots.

Acting all sanctimonious and holier than thou, doesn't help. People make mistakes and this was a serious incident that deserves more than just a fine to some poor random guy who bought a fun, creative toy.

Either you regulate drones like the UK with licenses, or you ensure the drones themselves immediately land if they come near controlled airspace. Or perhaps both. Trying to make examples of individuals is arguably heavy handed, and while it might help a little, won't solve the problem, given a growing drone market, and a never-ending supply of us stupid humans.

@chaos215bar2: There's this thing called registered mail. The post office requires you to sign for it, and leaves a notice in your mailbox if you're not home. Multiple notices if you don't respond after the first one. If you don't come by to pick it up, and none of your other mail is being returned, that's a pretty clear indication that you are deliberately avoiding that letter.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2019 at 16:09 UTC
In reply to:

Sannaborjeson: It's still a "poor man's Lightroom" and miles behind C1 v12 in terms of tools and rendering. Also On1 is not supported by RNI.

Believe me, if you can afford C1 or LR — you'll never use it.

LR is a no-go for me after they made it CC-only; I will not use subscription software unless there's no decent alternative.

I've trialed Capture 1 a couple of times, but don't like the interface. I do have a Fuji camera and therefore a license for the Fuji-only version, and one of these days plan on installing it and giving it a more thorough workout... chalk that up to 'time, never enough of'. ^^;;

On1 is, so far, my current favorite LR alternative. Emphasis on 'current'. The UI design is decent, but technical quality there lacks polish; I frequently see 'hiccups'. (For example, after committing a crop+rotate, the image will often appear to 'jump back' to a prior rotation angle, so that I have to re-enter crop mode to check that the rotation took.)

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2019 at 20:05 UTC
In reply to:

mfinley: I had to double check that this didn't originate in the Onion.

I feel really sad for anybody who lives in a city that has to consider "the bottoms" to be at hotspot and photogenic place to take wedding and family portraits at. Pictures in front of loading docks and doors...

A looksee at them ---
http://www.sarahdickersonblog.com/families-and-children/the-ripkey-family/

I used to work down in that area... there are indeed some old historic buildings; and it's just a few blocks away from Kemper Arena, where they used to hold concerts, NCAA Final Four basketball tournaments, that sort of thing.

That said, this area originally developed as the KC stockyards, one of the major national hubs for the cattle/livestock industry. Lots of large brick industrial buildings that've been around since the 1870s - which can be interesting for their antique value, but not their rarity. I think they're laying it on just a little thick...

That said Part 2... at some of the actual landmarks, like the Liberty Memorial ( https://flic.kr/p/21J1eqw ) and Union Station ( https://flic.kr/p/21J1e5S and https://flic.kr/p/24te8w9 ), I've often run into large wedding parties that legitimately do block traffic and cause hassle for ordinary visitors when they stage photo shoots.

Link | Posted on Nov 20, 2018 at 02:15 UTC
In reply to:

Aberaeron: Lot's of Sony 'hate' in these comments. For goodness' sake, why? Sony innovate. Sony introduced the XQD which others do not have to and most don't use. Sony make new stuff at a rate few others can match. If they didn't move their industry on, who would? Samsung didn't even let the paint dry on their cameras before dumping the whole division.
Some of the stuff Sony make is bound to fail to sell in hoped-for volumes, but that's the nature and risk of being innovators. They should be admired for pushing the boundaries with new and 'better' products both for direct sale to consumers under the Sony brand and for their competitive supply of high-tech components to rivals who don't have the resources to otherwise develop them and compete.

"Lot's of Sony 'hate' in these comments. For goodness' sake, why? Sony innovate. "

Some of us probably have bad memories of Sony's last foray into a 'media standard,' Memory Stick - which no one else used and very few third parties made cards for. As far as I could tell, there were no significant technical advantages, and the form factor wasn't significantly better than the industry-standard SD cards. The only reason I could see for it existing was that Sony wanted a memory card format it controlled.

Wasn't the only other case of that, either. Audio DAT (though at least it found general adoption as a computer backup drive, for a while.) Minidisc; though the media was interesting, Sony locked the format down hard. (I never saw Minidisc hardware from any other company in the US.) UMD, which again I can't see any reason for existing when mini-CDs existed and had some broader adoption. And Betamax, of course.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2018 at 22:42 UTC
In reply to:

Boissez: Drones are allowed to fly up to 400 feet AGL, private airplanes are allowed down to 500 feet AGL.

Drones aren't allowed around airfields.

This is non issue as long as people just follow the law.

Of course, anyone breaking those laws should get their comeupance.

I started typing out a long response, but you know... if the following doesn't make sense, then I'm not sure if we'll ever be on the same wavelength.

The one-page ruleset you venerate worked in the 'good old days' because RC flight was a difficult hobby that took a lot of time and effort, and anyone who advanced to the point where they could cause trouble for someone else would have enough common sense that simple 'common sense' guidance was good enough.

Today, any guy off the street can walk into Walmart, plunk down a few hundred dollars, and be up-and-flying in an hour or less. This means the number of people who fly quadcopters and can get in accidents has skyrocketed, while the average experience level of the people flying has plummeted. This is a recipe for trouble, pure and simple. *The situation has changed*. Simple 'common sense' rules aren't good enough any more. That is why clear guidelines that can be used as legal enforcement tools have become necessary.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2018 at 03:29 UTC
In reply to:

Boissez: Drones are allowed to fly up to 400 feet AGL, private airplanes are allowed down to 500 feet AGL.

Drones aren't allowed around airfields.

This is non issue as long as people just follow the law.

Of course, anyone breaking those laws should get their comeupance.

"I don't see why it shouldn't continue to work just fine in the future."

Um... because today we have lots of people getting into the RC hobby who can just buy a quadcopter and start flying, instead of taking the time to learn the rules of the air?

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2018 at 20:38 UTC
In reply to:

David Naylor: As a Lightroom user disgruntled by Adobe twisting my arm to become a subscriber, essentially doubling my annual cost and forcing me to pay for Photoshop which I don't use, I have been looking into the alternatives.

The conclusion is really that I just don't know what to do. It really is difficult switching from software that you have used for so long. You realise tiny little things which you really like about Lightroom which aren't there in the alternatives. One such thing is powerful file renaming on import (where I can use the original file number). Another hindrance to switching is just the task of learning a new interface.

That said, the Lightroom migration tool and updated UI sound promising and will be worth a closer look after release.

UI is a big reason I've been using On1 as my migration from Lightroom; it's probably the closest to Lightroom's UI of the programs I tried. Luminar doesn't have an integrated photo manager (though if they finally release the promised catalog module and it's good, it'll be a strong candidate.) CaptureOne... just felt badly out of sync with my working style. ACDSee's Mac version I didn't really look at; it seems limited in comparison to the Windows version, and I can't tell if it does nondestructive edits.

Unfortunately, On1 seems to have a real problem with polish and performance. For example, after doing a small straighten in Crop, re-entering Crop causes the image to rotationally jitter, leaving it hard to tell if it's rotated correctly.

For the moment, I give it a conditional recommendation; still the best alternative I've found, but far from perfect.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2018 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

Calvin Chann: I have a V1 and apart from the hobbled way they executed it (what's wrong with PASM) it's not bad for a 1" sensor based system.

Eh... I also had a V1 that I bought to try out when it went on clearance, and I was very unimpressed. Camera+lens was actually larger than equivalent M4/3 gear, picture quality was not notable... and for my normal subjects (landscape/architecture/museums), the fast focus and burst rate were irrelevant.

Worst of all, though, were the V1's ergonomics; did not fit comfortably in the hand, and the mode dial was in exactly the wrong position to keep getting accidentally changed by my thumb.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2018 at 19:19 UTC
In reply to:

GiM_6x: I do understand this is a "fair use" (non-comercial bla-bla-bla), BUT - considering the original is copyrighted (as SIGNED) - IT SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST A MENTION WHO THE PHOTOGRAPHER IS. . .

Not all the people having access to a excerpt can recognize who the author is on the spot, as when citing from a paper of from a book, or as cropped from a photo-video, and while it can be cited, should also provide the info from where this is comming, the work, the author.

Also, to clarify a misunderstanding here and in other places in the thread: 'non-commercial' by itself has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with fair use. A photo could be copied and given away for free, and it would be infringing if done without permission. A photo could be used on a non-profit website, and still be infringing.

Take a look at the actual text of the statute, at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

Fair use says that a photo can be used without permission if it's for "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research".

The actual text of the law regarding the first test, unlike the paraphrase used in the article above, states "nonprofit EDUCATIONAL purposes" - referring back to the list of uses in the introductory paragraph. Nowhere in that text does it allow 'promotional purposes' as an option.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2018 at 17:39 UTC
In reply to:

SantaFeBill: My problem with this is the same as any DAM that depends on a given editor: If you change editors, all your DAM work is lost.
If you use a separate DAM - PhotoMechanic, iMatch, etc. your DAM work is still there.
I've used PM for years - have changed through at least 4 editors in that time - and I still have all my ratings key wording etc., and I will still have it when/if I change to my next editor.

While I see your point about separating the DAM from the editor, I'm willing to pay that price because for my workflow, integrated DAM/editor is far more convenient.

The issue for me is that when I'm culling photos after a shoot, I'll rarely give up on a photo without trying to rescue it. So while I'm flipping through images looking for keepers, I'm also diving in and out of the editor to see if tweaking the exposure/contrast/etc. will save a photo. Adobe's policies have killed LR for me, but they did get this right. On1 Photo Raw, my current LR replacement, mostly gets this; but it's nowhere as smooth/fast/convenient as LR's context switches. Looking forward to seeing how well Luminar gets it.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2018 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

bwana4swahili: "Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection" normal indicates a company will no longer be in operation unless acquired by a 3rd party. A lot of smoke and mirrors in this announcement!!

I think you may be confusing Chapter 7 (sale/liquidation) and Chapter 11 (protection from creditors while staying in operation and trying to re-organize).

Chapter 7 is 'it's over'; Chapter 11, OTOH, frequently does allow the company to re-organize and stay in business.

Link | Posted on May 3, 2018 at 19:50 UTC
In reply to:

David Dahlstrom: It occurred to me that if I stick with LR6, I can take as long as I like to transition over to another product. If, on the other hand, I were to upgrade to LR CC now and then decide to migrate to another product later, I would need to make continual payments to Adobe for as long as it takes me to migrate (which could be quite a while since I will likely want to run both products in parallel for some time). This alone is reason for me to bite the bullet and migrate now, while LR6 is still current and still has a license that is not revokable. Capture One, here I come.

I'd also note that once you make the decision that you *will* transition, any work you do in LR is work that you can't be sure will transfer over to a new product. So from my own POV, I want to migrate as soon as possible, to minimize the amount of work that could be lost.

(In this case, the 'work' is my nondestructive edits; while I can export my last-edited version from LR, the processing work I used to make it is only partially transferred to any of the replacements I've tried so far. CaptureOne and On1 Raw will both import some edits but not most, so anything I transition over will be losing a fair amount.)

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 16:01 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: Lightroom 6 was released in April of 2015, so it's had about 2.5 years of updates. In the computing industry, 2.5 years (or really 2 years) is a long time. I personally don't quite understand the complaining that Adobe is ending updates for LR6. CaptureOne I'm sure as well as others, stop updating products after a few years, and that makes sense, because if you buy new gear or want new features, you have to pay up. (This is separate from the argument of subscription vs. perpetual licensing.)

The way I see this argument of subscription vs. perpetual is that it's a waste of time. Eventually your favorite editor will go subscription, and you move to the next, and the cycle repeats. It's only a matter of time before PhaseOne goes full subscription only. Why do you think they offered it? They are doing the same thing Adobe did years ago. It might be a few more years before PhaseOne / C1 changes,but its coming, and then people jump ship again and essentially "start over."

Then I will keep jumping ship. Because I will not support subscription software unless there is no alternative.

2 years is a good support period for free updates, and I would happily have paid for Lightroom 7 as a stand-alone product. But I will not go CC.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2017 at 22:40 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1623 comments in total)
In reply to:

reid thaler: I consider myself a cost-conscious, "I'd rather fix it than replace it," kind of guy. And I'm really tired of this continued belly-aching over the subscription model. It used to be that you had to pay north of $1,000 to use (you never owned it) Photoshop and Lightroom. (Which is about 8 years or more of the annual subscription price) .

Now, you get both for 33 CENTS a day. Geez, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and I recently figured that we have to pay $50/DAY just to pay the property tax to live here. No one requires anyone to take up photography, which isn't cheap the last time I bought anything photographic, except an Arca-Swiss rail from Malaysia.

People are whining about 33 cents a day? Really? And you don't see the value of Photoshop and Lightroom, and the convenience of syncing images between your phone and computer fairly effortlessly?

Take up knitting instead.

As I've said elsewhere in the threads, saving the edits is worthless unless you can go back and modify them. That's a key tenet of nondestructive editing. If you can't change them, what's the point of saving them? Just export the last-edited version and be done with it; at least your edited version can be read by other software.

To put it another way: if you can't go back and modify your edits, you're in the same position as if the only thing you had was the original and the exported last edit. If you want to modify something, you have to go back to the original and start over from scratch. That's what I mean by losing all of my work.

So. Let us sum up:

1. It retains the original.
2. It retains the edits you did, but you can't CHANGE them. So it is effectively the same as exporting the last-edited version and deleting the edits.
4. Therefore, if you want to work with the image again, you lose everything you've done and have to start over. Your saved edits are useless.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 02:51 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1623 comments in total)
In reply to:

casperghst42: What some people forget is that with a subscription model, the software stops working the second you stop paying ... and you loose access to your data.. that is what is wrong with the subscription model.

@Ribbit74: So what? The processing work IS the data I care about in Lightroom, and Adobe'd definitely be holding it hostage.

Arguably the most important feature of LR for me is nondestructive editing... If I can't go back and modify my edits later, what's the point of having them? I might just as well have exported the last-edited version and been done with it.

The second most important feature - and the most important part of Lightroom as a DAM for me - is integrating DAM and editing. So when I'm culling photos after a shoot, I can quickly switch to Develop and see if a crop or color/levels adjustment can save a mediocre photo, and dump it immediately if not, then switch back to scanning through the photos.

Without these abilities, Lightroom is at best an average DAM, and there's not a whole lot of value for me compared to any other DAM. I can switch to another DAM a lot easier than I can re-do all my edits in another program.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 00:18 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1623 comments in total)
In reply to:

reid thaler: I consider myself a cost-conscious, "I'd rather fix it than replace it," kind of guy. And I'm really tired of this continued belly-aching over the subscription model. It used to be that you had to pay north of $1,000 to use (you never owned it) Photoshop and Lightroom. (Which is about 8 years or more of the annual subscription price) .

Now, you get both for 33 CENTS a day. Geez, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and I recently figured that we have to pay $50/DAY just to pay the property tax to live here. No one requires anyone to take up photography, which isn't cheap the last time I bought anything photographic, except an Arca-Swiss rail from Malaysia.

People are whining about 33 cents a day? Really? And you don't see the value of Photoshop and Lightroom, and the convenience of syncing images between your phone and computer fairly effortlessly?

Take up knitting instead.

No, this is not about cost. This is about putting myself in a position where Adobe sets the conditions where I can access the work I've done with Adobe software.

With any software sold on a subscription basis, the company selling the subscription can cut off my access to the software at any time; that is an explicit part of the subscription model. I have to meet their conditions in order to retain access to the software - and any work created in that software.*

Right now, Adobe's conditions are a monthly fee that is cheaper than the old perpetual license price - but ONLY if you upgraded once a year and paid list price. (I bought LR 6 almost 2 years ago, at a $99 discount price, FWIW.) However, they can change that price at any time - and add any other conditions they want to - and I'd be stuck if I wanted to keep my edits.

*LR does retain the original photo and export an edited version - but nondestructive editing is my most important LR feature, so losing the edits is a Big Deal.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 23:57 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1623 comments in total)
In reply to:

casperghst42: What some people forget is that with a subscription model, the software stops working the second you stop paying ... and you loose access to your data.. that is what is wrong with the subscription model.

Losing access to the Develop module means losing the ability to access and adjust your old edits; that's almost as bad. How much good does it do you to access your old photos if you can't edit them?

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 13:48 UTC
In reply to:

blurredvision: Came for the comments and was not disappointed. One of these days all you blowhards will actually leave Adobe products behind like you say you will, but I don't think that day will be today.

The problem with 'use current LR as long as they continue to be useful' is that the longer you keep using them, the worse you're making your future transition problem.

The original files will transfer over, but your edits may or may not; in the initial searches I've done in the last couple of hours, it looks like Capture 1 will import some but not all of your edits, On1 has a migration tool that will 'create rendered copies' of your LR edits, but I haven't dug far enough to see if the 'rendered copy' is a true equivalent of a nondestructively-edited LR photo, or whether it's the equivalent of exporting a photo from LR with edits.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 21:23 UTC
Total: 46, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »