Lee Jay

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

Comments

Total: 1039, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »

I wonder if what I do would satisfy their criteria.

I generally remove sharpening from the skin and sometimes apply negative local contrast.
I sometimes whiten the whites of the eyes and teeth with a little additional local exposure to those areas.
I remove temporary blemishes such as bug bites, scratches or pimples.

I find the result of these modifications is an image that looks more like the person looks to my eye than the image before these changes.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2018 at 22:24 UTC as 70th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Still fixed focal length?

Not true. Changing position changes perspective. Changing zoom changes only framing. This fact is commonly used in film to achieve the Dolly Zoom effect.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2018 at 04:45 UTC

Still fixed focal length?

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2018 at 23:04 UTC as 26th comment | 4 replies
On article Why you should own a 135mm F2 lens (385 comments in total)

I once had the Canon 135/2L on my wish list. But I ultimately never bought it and never plan to. The main reason is because I find the flexibility of a 70-200 zoom far superior to the one-stop aperture advantage of the 135/2, and I find the stabilization of that lens to be too valuable to give up. The weight advantage of the prime means nothing to me.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2018 at 19:32 UTC as 115th comment | 2 replies
On article FAA bans drones from flying near 7 nuclear facilities (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

Focus Shift Shooting: I would support drones if they were completely invisible, made absolutely no noise, and were 100% safe.

But since they are going to get in my vision when used around me, and make extremely annoying obnoxious model toy airplane noises x 4 rotors, and can and have crashed and will hurt people if they hit them; then I cannot and will not support their use.

I would rather that this ban affected drones entirely and outlawed them completely!

Some motorcycles are loud but all drones are loud? I have a few devices that fall under the same classification as drones by the FAA (UAS) that make essentially no sound at all, which people love to watch, which have no cameras and which are virtually incapable of hurting anyone or anything. Those should be under your total ban too, right?

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2017 at 12:54 UTC
On article FAA bans drones from flying near 7 nuclear facilities (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: So, harmless 2-pound models are banned from these sites but you can still fly a 777 over them and look up their imagery on Google Maps/Earth.

Makes sense.

So are full-scale airplanes.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 20:30 UTC
On article FAA bans drones from flying near 7 nuclear facilities (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

fluppeteer: I only recognise a few of these names without looking them up, but what I recognise them AS is nuclear weapon research facilities (mostly from the supercomputer "Top500" list). I'm astonished that you've EVER been legally allowed to go near them with a drone - for surveillance reasons, not damage risk. Nothing may happen outside, but you could still identify employees and quite possibly record conversations.

I'm absolutely not against responsible drone use (and have a Mavic, which is admittedly hard to fly far where I live because of populated zones and airports; I take trips to where there are very few people and fly as out of earshot as I can). But secure facilities are secure facilities, and should stay that way - irrespective of country, speaking as a Brit.

These aren't nuclear power plants, they're Department of Energy laboratories (mostly, which are mostly office buildings) and nuclear materials sites.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 18:28 UTC
In reply to:

icexe: Meh. I used to be on the anti-CC bandwagon, but then after I actually tried it, I really don't mind it. When I thought about it, a ten year subscription at $120/year is still way less than I spend on just one single camera or lens on average, and I buy several of those a year. I would also argue that PS is a far more useful tool for me than any new camera or lens. After a while it just felt silly to be that upset about it.

You aren't paying attention.

PS is what I think is useless in a modern photography workflow. So I haven't used it since LR came out. I've used LR extensively since, and still do.

I have used Elements Editor occasionally for special circumstances, mostly in group shots where none of them had everyone with their eyes open and I had to cut-n-paste heads or faces. But that's dozens out of hundreds of thousands of images processed. And I use Elements over CS6 (which I own) because it's faster and easier to use than either PS CS6 or PS CC.

Got it now?

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 17:10 UTC
In reply to:

icexe: Meh. I used to be on the anti-CC bandwagon, but then after I actually tried it, I really don't mind it. When I thought about it, a ten year subscription at $120/year is still way less than I spend on just one single camera or lens on average, and I buy several of those a year. I would also argue that PS is a far more useful tool for me than any new camera or lens. After a while it just felt silly to be that upset about it.

Well, I've managed to process nearly 400,000 images during the last 13 years without it. I've used Elements Editor (which is way faster and easier to use the CS6 or CC) for about two dozen of those images.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 15:55 UTC
On article FAA bans drones from flying near 7 nuclear facilities (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

fluppeteer: I only recognise a few of these names without looking them up, but what I recognise them AS is nuclear weapon research facilities (mostly from the supercomputer "Top500" list). I'm astonished that you've EVER been legally allowed to go near them with a drone - for surveillance reasons, not damage risk. Nothing may happen outside, but you could still identify employees and quite possibly record conversations.

I'm absolutely not against responsible drone use (and have a Mavic, which is admittedly hard to fly far where I live because of populated zones and airports; I take trips to where there are very few people and fly as out of earshot as I can). But secure facilities are secure facilities, and should stay that way - irrespective of country, speaking as a Brit.

I don't know if any of those are restricted. Certainly most are not, possibly all.

And the height rules depend on type of aircraft (no limit for helicopters) and location (500 or 1000). Regardless, I could get better shots from a GA aircraft from 1000 feet than you could with a drone with a GoPro at 50 feet.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 14:21 UTC
In reply to:

icexe: Meh. I used to be on the anti-CC bandwagon, but then after I actually tried it, I really don't mind it. When I thought about it, a ten year subscription at $120/year is still way less than I spend on just one single camera or lens on average, and I buy several of those a year. I would also argue that PS is a far more useful tool for me than any new camera or lens. After a while it just felt silly to be that upset about it.

No, it took me 8 years to discover it's crap, and it's been getting worse as they add features unrelated to photography and ignore the photography workflow. Like I said, that's the main reason LR was invented - because PS is useless in a modern photography workflow.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 14:07 UTC
On article FAA bans drones from flying near 7 nuclear facilities (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

fluppeteer: I only recognise a few of these names without looking them up, but what I recognise them AS is nuclear weapon research facilities (mostly from the supercomputer "Top500" list). I'm astonished that you've EVER been legally allowed to go near them with a drone - for surveillance reasons, not damage risk. Nothing may happen outside, but you could still identify employees and quite possibly record conversations.

I'm absolutely not against responsible drone use (and have a Mavic, which is admittedly hard to fly far where I live because of populated zones and airports; I take trips to where there are very few people and fly as out of earshot as I can). But secure facilities are secure facilities, and should stay that way - irrespective of country, speaking as a Brit.

So, no drones for surveillance risk, but I can fly over them in my GA aircraft at 500 feet with a 100-400 on an SLR no problem.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 14:05 UTC
In reply to:

icexe: Meh. I used to be on the anti-CC bandwagon, but then after I actually tried it, I really don't mind it. When I thought about it, a ten year subscription at $120/year is still way less than I spend on just one single camera or lens on average, and I buy several of those a year. I would also argue that PS is a far more useful tool for me than any new camera or lens. After a while it just felt silly to be that upset about it.

I've been using PS for 15 years or so. I do know how to use it. It's just that it has become so bloated with 3D, video, lighting and all sorts of other tools that it just isn't useful in a photographic work flow. That is, in fact, why LR was invented - to be an efficient way of managing and processing large volumes of images. Sure, if you want to spend tens of minutes to hours on one image, PS is fine. But when you process tens of thousands of images a year PS is just a slow and overly complicated mess. I currently use Elements 9 editor when necessary. It has more than I need, including layer masks.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 04:59 UTC
On article FAA bans drones from flying near 7 nuclear facilities (121 comments in total)

So, harmless 2-pound models are banned from these sites but you can still fly a 777 over them and look up their imagery on Google Maps/Earth.

Makes sense.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 02:26 UTC as 11th comment | 5 replies
On article FAA bans drones from flying near 7 nuclear facilities (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

Focus Shift Shooting: I would support drones if they were completely invisible, made absolutely no noise, and were 100% safe.

But since they are going to get in my vision when used around me, and make extremely annoying obnoxious model toy airplane noises x 4 rotors, and can and have crashed and will hurt people if they hit them; then I cannot and will not support their use.

I would rather that this ban affected drones entirely and outlawed them completely!

Cars aren't new technology? The organizations that support model aeronautics began in the 1920s. In other words, it's highly likely that model aircraft are much older than you are.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 02:24 UTC
In reply to:

icexe: Meh. I used to be on the anti-CC bandwagon, but then after I actually tried it, I really don't mind it. When I thought about it, a ten year subscription at $120/year is still way less than I spend on just one single camera or lens on average, and I buy several of those a year. I would also argue that PS is a far more useful tool for me than any new camera or lens. After a while it just felt silly to be that upset about it.

I use about 75 pieces of software regularly (some photo, some video, some technical, some mathematical, etc.). I wouldn't want to pay $10 a month for each one.

I kept my last camera system in-tact with essentially no spending for 9 years. When I bought new, my total investment was moderate because I sold a lot of the older lenses (all but one, actually).

I wouldn't mind paying for Lightroom at $89 every 18 months the way it's always been. But now it's essentially doubled in price from $89 to $180. I don't like being ripped off regardless of the amount and paying for PS which I never use (because it's crap - designed for graphic artists, not photographers nowadays) is a ripoff.

I'll gladly pay $89 for Lightroom 7 (which they renamed) today, but they won't sell it to me.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 23:10 UTC
In reply to:

icexe: Meh. I used to be on the anti-CC bandwagon, but then after I actually tried it, I really don't mind it. When I thought about it, a ten year subscription at $120/year is still way less than I spend on just one single camera or lens on average, and I buy several of those a year. I would also argue that PS is a far more useful tool for me than any new camera or lens. After a while it just felt silly to be that upset about it.

Would you pay $10 a month for every piece of software and every application you use?

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 22:30 UTC
In reply to:

icexe: Meh. I used to be on the anti-CC bandwagon, but then after I actually tried it, I really don't mind it. When I thought about it, a ten year subscription at $120/year is still way less than I spend on just one single camera or lens on average, and I buy several of those a year. I would also argue that PS is a far more useful tool for me than any new camera or lens. After a while it just felt silly to be that upset about it.

I already have LR 6. I won't switch to classic because there's no way to buy it without paying for photoshop as well.

The problem with "another brand" is that none of them support all the metadata I use.

So I'm going to use 6 until I can't anymore.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

icexe: Meh. I used to be on the anti-CC bandwagon, but then after I actually tried it, I really don't mind it. When I thought about it, a ten year subscription at $120/year is still way less than I spend on just one single camera or lens on average, and I buy several of those a year. I would also argue that PS is a far more useful tool for me than any new camera or lens. After a while it just felt silly to be that upset about it.

I find PS useless because I can do everything that needs to be done in Lightroom in a much faster and more efficient way.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 19:34 UTC
In reply to:

icexe: Meh. I used to be on the anti-CC bandwagon, but then after I actually tried it, I really don't mind it. When I thought about it, a ten year subscription at $120/year is still way less than I spend on just one single camera or lens on average, and I buy several of those a year. I would also argue that PS is a far more useful tool for me than any new camera or lens. After a while it just felt silly to be that upset about it.

That includes cameras for work. I own three, two of which were bought in 2005 and before.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2017 at 19:21 UTC
Total: 1039, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »