Lee Jay

Lives in United States CO, United States
Works as a Electrical Engineer / Wind Energy Research
Joined on Oct 17, 2003

Comments

Total: 961, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article DJI Spark Review: Small but mighty (131 comments in total)

I'm seriously dubious about the "fun to fly" claim in the tweet. This entire category seems specifically designed to be as un-fun to fly as possible. Certainly none of them I've ever flown are remotely fun to fly.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2017 at 16:14 UTC as 40th comment | 6 replies
On article Phase One introduces Capture One ambassador program (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Three strikes against Capture One for me:

- No geotagging (I make extensive use of this in Lightroom)
- No face tagging (I make extensive use of this in Lightroom)
- $300 or $20 a month (might as well keep Lightroom 6 or pay for CC for half the cost)

I can't even get a lock in my house on any of my GPS-equipped cameras.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 21:35 UTC
On article Phase One introduces Capture One ambassador program (86 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Three strikes against Capture One for me:

- No geotagging (I make extensive use of this in Lightroom)
- No face tagging (I make extensive use of this in Lightroom)
- $300 or $20 a month (might as well keep Lightroom 6 or pay for CC for half the cost)

I don't have a subscription to Lightroom. I have Lightroom 6 perpetual, which I intend to continue using for a long time.

It's incredibly common (like, every single imported shoot) to go to the map module and either manually add map data or use either my Google Timeline or an exported .gpx file from my phone to geotag my pictures. The GPS device built into my camera is just about totally useless because I often shoot indoor where it doesn't work at all. The phone does because it defaults to using cell tower triangulation in this case, something the camera can't do.

I wouldn't choose CaptureOne's subscription for the same reason I won't choose Adobe's subscription, plus CaptureOne's is twice as expensive.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 14:07 UTC
On article Phase One introduces Capture One ambassador program (86 comments in total)

Three strikes against Capture One for me:

- No geotagging (I make extensive use of this in Lightroom)
- No face tagging (I make extensive use of this in Lightroom)
- $300 or $20 a month (might as well keep Lightroom 6 or pay for CC for half the cost)

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 18:33 UTC as 17th comment | 6 replies

The problems are:

- Bugs and general slowness in Lightroom 6/classic.
- Lack of a perpetual license option going forward. I'm one of those who thinks of monthly payments the way I think of, say, contracting cancer.
- Lack of a subscription license option that doesn't include either PS or the cloud. Why pay for something you don't use? And $10/month for just Lightroom is more than twice the previous upgrade cost.
- Over-priced cloud storage ($120/TB/year). I can out-right purchase a 4TB drive for $120, and use it for many years (and I have). Amazon's cloud is $60/TB/year. Microsoft's is $70/TB/year and includes Office. Even Google, which is over-priced like Adobe, has a pay-annually option to save $20 a year, which about matches DropBox's $99/TB/year. In short, Adobe is the most expensive and it's only for photos, rather than general purpose.

I'm just going to keep using LR6. It's slow, but it works.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 16:51 UTC as 185th comment | 1 reply
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1632 comments in total)

The subscription model is bad enough, but my even larger beef is being forced to buy and perpetually pay for a product I won't use.

The choices remaining require me to pay for either:

-- 1TB of cloud services.
-- Photoshop.

I don't need either one and don't want to pay for either one.

Give me just Lightroom either with a perpetual license for $89 or LR CC (Classic) for something like $50 a year and I'll probably buy it. It's either that or Adobe get's exactly zero of my money.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 23:07 UTC as 517th comment | 1 reply

Great - so I'd still have to pay for Adobe Portfolio (never heard of it before), Adobe Spark (never heard of it before but the website says it's free anyway), and Photoshop which I don't use at all, just to have Lightroom.

I'd still rather pay $89 for a perpetual version or at most $4.99 a month for just Lightroom.

And the Adobe cloud holds about as much interest to me as a plate of rotten shellfish. Had it for free for a year and couldn't find anything at all useful to do with it.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 17:48 UTC as 194th comment
On article Google Research explains the Pixel 2 portrait mode (80 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: So, it only works for people. That's about half of what I use shallow DOF for.

No need for macro since even tiny lenses have real thin DOF in that area.

I regularly use it for animals and many types of objects.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 17:34 UTC
On article Google Research explains the Pixel 2 portrait mode (80 comments in total)

So, it only works for people. That's about half of what I use shallow DOF for.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 15:38 UTC as 17th comment | 2 replies
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Very noisy, some have global contrast way too high and some have white balance a bit too cold. Not impressive. Looks like a pre-2010 compact without the zoom range.

A modern cell phone has more computing power than an 11 year old PC. But a modern cell phone camera can't come close to beating an 11 year old compact camera.

Why?

Because cameras are mostly about optics, not electronics. Optics are not subject to Moore's Law.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 15:09 UTC
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Very noisy, some have global contrast way too high and some have white balance a bit too cold. Not impressive. Looks like a pre-2010 compact without the zoom range.

Not just a camera, a camera from 11 years ago.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 13:42 UTC
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Very noisy, some have global contrast way too high and some have white balance a bit too cold. Not impressive. Looks like a pre-2010 compact without the zoom range.

Yep...this 2006 camera gallery looks substantially better.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong7/18

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 13:35 UTC
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (141 comments in total)

Very noisy, some have global contrast way too high and some have white balance a bit too cold. Not impressive. Looks like a pre-2010 compact without the zoom range.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 13:33 UTC as 56th comment | 7 replies
On a photo in the Pixel 2 sample gallery sample gallery (5 comments in total)

Several of the images have the white balance too blue for my taste. This is one of them.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 13:31 UTC as 2nd comment | 3 replies
On a photo in the Pixel 2 sample gallery sample gallery (1 comment in total)

Lot's of "impulse" noise everywhere. Should have been taken at 1/4 second or something like it to reduce the noise.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 13:29 UTC as 1st comment
On a photo in the Pixel 2 sample gallery sample gallery (1 comment in total)

The sky is blown out and the water is full of noise.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 13:26 UTC as 1st comment

An expensive and cumbersome device that doesn't solve either of the biggest two problems with cell phone cameras - lack of focal length range and stabilization that actually works.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2017 at 14:00 UTC as 21st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

joe6pack: I have been to places with little light pollution and a clear sky. I would go out on a limp and say that all those photos and videos are lies. Milky way isn't all that visible. The photos are result of long exposure that human eyes aren't capable of.

Yes, even if naked eyes, it is beautiful. I can make out where the milky way is but it is no where as clear as shown in those photos. See the milky way next to a light house? Get real!

My whole family was there, and all four of us saw it.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 15:32 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: I have been to places with little light pollution and a clear sky. I would go out on a limp and say that all those photos and videos are lies. Milky way isn't all that visible. The photos are result of long exposure that human eyes aren't capable of.

Yes, even if naked eyes, it is beautiful. I can make out where the milky way is but it is no where as clear as shown in those photos. See the milky way next to a light house? Get real!

HB1969 is correct. You can see the detail shown, but not the color due to how our dark-adapted eyesight works.

I'm amazed by the sensitivity of the eye. What I can see in a tenth of a second through an eyepiece takes a 15 second exposure at at least ISO 6,400 through the same scope.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2017 at 03:03 UTC
In reply to:

joe6pack: I have been to places with little light pollution and a clear sky. I would go out on a limp and say that all those photos and videos are lies. Milky way isn't all that visible. The photos are result of long exposure that human eyes aren't capable of.

Yes, even if naked eyes, it is beautiful. I can make out where the milky way is but it is no where as clear as shown in those photos. See the milky way next to a light house? Get real!

I have been to a truly dark place, where I could see my shadow on the ground by the light of Jupiter and the Milky Way was bright and all the wispy detail was immediately visible.

You have to be at a very dark place and have your eyes dark adapted for at least a half hour for that.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 20:22 UTC
Total: 961, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »