Albert Silver

Lives in Brazil Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Works as a Editor
Joined on Mar 14, 2012

Comments

Total: 342, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

jonby: Thanks for reminding me why I don't have a smartphone.

@jonby You are quite right many people have zero control over their usage, just as there are alcoholics, video game addicts and many other destructive addictions. This does not mean it is the only way to interact or use such a device. Regardless of the abuse, smartphones are a fantastic revolutionary device. Aside from becoming a zombie on social media or playing games on it, you can also enjoy audiobooks and history lectures on the go (I listen to them ALL the time), music if you are a music lover (I am addicted, unabashedly, to books), film and take photos (not DSLR, but the best camera is the one...), write and receive emails (I type too slow on these devices so I dictate everything), self-improve with my endless courses such as Udemy, write and update blogs, stay in touch with family and friends over long distances with video, catch up on the news, and so much more. 15 years ago we had phones with some computer functions; today we have powerful computers with some phone functions.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2021 at 16:12 UTC
In reply to:

Svetoslav Popov: Affinity claimed that as well, and while under the hood it's as good as Photoshop, and in some respects even better, the UI is a nightmare in a professional context (i tried to work with Affinity Photo for over a year, and had to give up). Affinity Designer is even worse as user experience, but i digress...

Let's hope that this one fares better.

Haters will be haters. Affinity Designer really offers a number of tools and options that Illustrator does not have, though of course it is vice-versa. As to not printing or rendering, I am not sure I understand your point. Since one can disable or even hide a layer, I assume you mean something else though what I don't know.

As to Photo, the only time I have ever used a constrained marquee in Photoshop was for cropping, which in Photo you can constrain just fine. Perhaps you are seeking something particular or different?

I quite like the clear separation of features into categories, so I don't have one single awful mess of every single function left there all the time. Overall, I found your comment just a typical morass of negativity that is very common in today's internet cancel culture. We all choose how we approach things. I prefer a more positive view on things.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2021 at 01:22 UTC
In reply to:

Svetoslav Popov: Affinity claimed that as well, and while under the hood it's as good as Photoshop, and in some respects even better, the UI is a nightmare in a professional context (i tried to work with Affinity Photo for over a year, and had to give up). Affinity Designer is even worse as user experience, but i digress...

Let's hope that this one fares better.

@dusty-lens I agree on your comment, and disagree on the UI. I find the UI just fine and very smart. Managing layers is classic and standard, the ability to easily split between the unique vector AND pixel editing options is simple, modifying elements is uncomplicated and consistent, and things such as magic wand work much much better than in the Adobe equivalents. Frankly, I find it clearly superior to Adobe's UI design, but of course Adobe is using the same basic design for over 20 years, while newer programs have had the opportunity to keep the good elements and improve on the worse ones. Is it perfect? Probably not, but it is definitely better and more intuitive than Adobe's. If you really want a program that buries Adobe's design concept, compare Filmora to Premiere.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2021 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

Svetoslav Popov: Affinity claimed that as well, and while under the hood it's as good as Photoshop, and in some respects even better, the UI is a nightmare in a professional context (i tried to work with Affinity Photo for over a year, and had to give up). Affinity Designer is even worse as user experience, but i digress...

Let's hope that this one fares better.

Completely disagree on Affinity Designer, but of course it has evolved a lot. The latest version is fantastic. One thing that helped a lot was this course at Udemy (https://www.udemy.com/course/affinity-designer-solid-foundations/). I picked it up for $5.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2021 at 22:50 UTC
In reply to:

MacM545: Anyone able to install it? Let me know

Yes, I played around with it a bit. It is very cool. They may aim it at adult creatives, but I can see kids having a ball with it too.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2021 at 05:10 UTC
On article Head to Head: Apple Final Cut Pro vs Adobe Premiere Pro (273 comments in total)
In reply to:

joger: "We all hate on Apple's walled garden from time to time"

Do we?

What "walled garden" - this is a claim I never understood - other operating systems have also limitations in use and I find the walls even higher at Windows or Linux since I can't administrate them the same easy way as I can use my MACs.

I find no limitations of whatsoever kind other than my own ability to use the devices in the right way - in fact I find it much harder to make e.g. a backup of a windows machine and roll back or to setup a machine properly outside of MACs - this is a claim I hardly understand using both on a daily base.

It might be a perception thing from people not able to see the bigger picture. In many ways windows seems to be a much more walled garden with respect to privacy - only difference being that the wild animals can slip through the wall easily whereas at Apple the latest improvements in browsing and mailing are nothing short but amazing for most users.

The author is referring to the hardware configuration. In a non-Apple machine, I can choose the CPU, GPU, memory, HD, Etc. and not pay the Apple premium on the same parts too.

For example, suppose you are buying a new iMac, but want to upgrade the 256GB SSD to 512GB. No problem, just cough up an extra $200. Prefer 1TB? Then please add $400! How about upgrading the measly 8GB of RAM it comes with to 16GB? Only in the Apple universe does that cost $200. But of course with no competition in their walled garden they can do and charge what they please.

By comparison, 18 months ago I added a 1TB M.2 SSD by Intel into my laptop, for which I paid $82 at NewEgg.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2021 at 14:00 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: Whoa, does it mean - after ~20 Years, the Nik Collection would finally become Fullscreen? I paid way much already at the End of 90s, for Silver Efex Pro, and Color Efex, yes, back then - every Plugin was costly.

Much much later, 2012 afaik, i bought the Google Nik Collection.
/edit

o Adobe Photoshop CC 2020 through 2021 (if launched from Adobe Photoshop)

So older Photoshop versions are not (?!) being supported - Users beware !
https://shop.dxo.com/en/nik-collection-4.html

Maybe it's about time to switch to Affinity Photo soon...

Our experiences differ it seems. For me Photoshop installs in a completely different folder, and does not touch the previous version. I also did nothing to achieve this.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2021 at 01:23 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: Whoa, does it mean - after ~20 Years, the Nik Collection would finally become Fullscreen? I paid way much already at the End of 90s, for Silver Efex Pro, and Color Efex, yes, back then - every Plugin was costly.

Much much later, 2012 afaik, i bought the Google Nik Collection.
/edit

o Adobe Photoshop CC 2020 through 2021 (if launched from Adobe Photoshop)

So older Photoshop versions are not (?!) being supported - Users beware !
https://shop.dxo.com/en/nik-collection-4.html

Maybe it's about time to switch to Affinity Photo soon...

Not sure what Photoshop has to do with this. You cannot expect a modern plugin to obligatorily support legacy software. In any case you can use these as standalone.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2021 at 19:15 UTC
In reply to:

Lessiter: This looks great. Not a nikon shooter but all brands should have these types of lenses. Focal lengths are great choices as well.

As long as they are slightly better than DSLR equivalents this is very good news.

Those concerned about plastic mounts should get over themselves. It makes no difference. These all plastic lenses tend to be indestructible. More so than more expensive ones.

Are you getting a lens to take pictures with it, or of it?

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2021 at 14:55 UTC
In reply to:

David610: 40mm f/2 looks amazing!

Couldn't agree more. Compact, fast... let's hope the performance and price match its promise.

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2021 at 04:22 UTC
On a photo in the Fujifilm XF 18mm F1.4 pre-production sample gallery (DPReview TV) sample gallery (4 comments in total)
In reply to:

blåland: Look at that sad man sitting on the curb. No telling what he's gone through. Great capture!

Just exhausted from doing the review of the video capabilities of the lens.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2021 at 18:23 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E4 review: small size, big image quality (742 comments in total)

'Losing' out to the X100v in specs is one thing, but there is also a significant price difference between the two. The X-E4 with lens goes for $1049, while the X100v retails for $1399. That is not a small difference.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2021 at 05:48 UTC as 9th comment

Ok, so a little digging confirms the 50 f/1.5 is another modern build of the classic Zeiss Sonnar 50 f/1.5 which came out in the 30s. The design was already modernized for the Leica (also using the same design), though obviously much sharper.

Ken Rockwell (and no doubt others) has solid info on both at his site:

Classic Zeiss: https://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/50mm-f15.htm
Modernized version: https://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zm/50mm-f15.htm

Of course, Zenitar would need to obtain optics as least as good as the modern Zeiss to make it remotely attractive to buyers. A steep challenge.

As to the 35 f/2 for Sony e-mount, it is hard to imagine the appeal considering the absurdly saturated field of 35s available for it. Time will tell.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2021 at 21:40 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Kurgo: 700€ for a 58 f/2 plastic fantastic with a whopping 4 elements in 3 groups...

No idea what Zenit's smoking but I guess I'll have some of it.

The problem is that one can buy a Helios 44M-7 (also 58/2) for a fraction of the price. It too is unique. Zenitar really needs to show images, MTF charts or other to justify that really high price.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2021 at 20:04 UTC
On article Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated? (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Silver: Killer sharpness certainly has its uses, notably in creating charts and images where I can show off how detailed a fingernail or zit is. But honestly after a point it stops being such a reality. People who argue an image will be blown up on a billboard and make a difference are.... wrong. No one sees a billboard close enough to note how sharp the eyelashes are, or long enough to see it, or even care. Can you think of a single instance? So yes, you don't want an image that is all fuzzy where it should not be, but be realistic about what is seen or not.

I've been part of a group of people enjoying legacy lenses on a modern camera and it is a real pleasure. My favorite for now is the Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f/1.4 (picked up for $15) which is quite sharp in the center as of f/1.7. As in sharp enough for me to be happy with the results. Corners will still be soft, but when shooting f/1.7 I am not trying for a landscape image, so it is quite irrelevant. Choose the tool (or settings) for the job.

Finally, there is the issue of pairing a lower resolution lens with a higher resolution sensor, which to you seems a mistake. And I understand why you think this, but it is flawed. You are quite correct that a lens that cannot resolve 50MP on a 50MP sensor will not resolve details beyond its ability, however the lens is glass, not pixels. Why does this matter? Because while it cannot resolve details at such a level, the images will still be that much smoother at a high resolution, just as a perfect circle at 2MP will be far more pixelated than were it displayed at 20MP.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2021 at 18:22 UTC
On article Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated? (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Silver: Killer sharpness certainly has its uses, notably in creating charts and images where I can show off how detailed a fingernail or zit is. But honestly after a point it stops being such a reality. People who argue an image will be blown up on a billboard and make a difference are.... wrong. No one sees a billboard close enough to note how sharp the eyelashes are, or long enough to see it, or even care. Can you think of a single instance? So yes, you don't want an image that is all fuzzy where it should not be, but be realistic about what is seen or not.

I've been part of a group of people enjoying legacy lenses on a modern camera and it is a real pleasure. My favorite for now is the Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f/1.4 (picked up for $15) which is quite sharp in the center as of f/1.7. As in sharp enough for me to be happy with the results. Corners will still be soft, but when shooting f/1.7 I am not trying for a landscape image, so it is quite irrelevant. Choose the tool (or settings) for the job.

I'm not taking it personally at all. I was addressing your comments to Istina, who you attacked as 'selling tiny little snaps" and the barrage of comments on low-res photography or lenses. I shoot with a 24MP Nikon D750 and have printed to the size of posters, so let's get that out of the way. Not only do I have no problems with the resolution, but nor do I feel anything lacking in the images because of it.

I have visited more than one gallery display of images that were shot by photographers who did not have ultra-high-def at their disposal and at no point did I look at and think: "this image would be so much better had it been shot on a 100MP Phase One camera". Such a thought just strikes me as ludicrous.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2021 at 18:21 UTC
On article Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated? (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Silver: Killer sharpness certainly has its uses, notably in creating charts and images where I can show off how detailed a fingernail or zit is. But honestly after a point it stops being such a reality. People who argue an image will be blown up on a billboard and make a difference are.... wrong. No one sees a billboard close enough to note how sharp the eyelashes are, or long enough to see it, or even care. Can you think of a single instance? So yes, you don't want an image that is all fuzzy where it should not be, but be realistic about what is seen or not.

I've been part of a group of people enjoying legacy lenses on a modern camera and it is a real pleasure. My favorite for now is the Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f/1.4 (picked up for $15) which is quite sharp in the center as of f/1.7. As in sharp enough for me to be happy with the results. Corners will still be soft, but when shooting f/1.7 I am not trying for a landscape image, so it is quite irrelevant. Choose the tool (or settings) for the job.

"Sharpness isn't even a thing when looking at such beauty."

What beauty? The beauty of 'sharpness'?

"Perhaps sharpness is a problem for low-defs and obsolete glass lovers."

Only in your mind.

"I say it is stupid to blow up a low-res image to 60" and then keep the distance, so that you won't see the lack of definition."

And I said no one (well, except for you) looks at the lack of definition you are bemoaning.

"it is silly to assume that anyone advocating for modern ultra-high-def capable gear must be a lousy photographer."

No more silly than complaining anyone who does not espouse this must be one.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2021 at 17:35 UTC
On article Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated? (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Silver: Killer sharpness certainly has its uses, notably in creating charts and images where I can show off how detailed a fingernail or zit is. But honestly after a point it stops being such a reality. People who argue an image will be blown up on a billboard and make a difference are.... wrong. No one sees a billboard close enough to note how sharp the eyelashes are, or long enough to see it, or even care. Can you think of a single instance? So yes, you don't want an image that is all fuzzy where it should not be, but be realistic about what is seen or not.

I've been part of a group of people enjoying legacy lenses on a modern camera and it is a real pleasure. My favorite for now is the Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f/1.4 (picked up for $15) which is quite sharp in the center as of f/1.7. As in sharp enough for me to be happy with the results. Corners will still be soft, but when shooting f/1.7 I am not trying for a landscape image, so it is quite irrelevant. Choose the tool (or settings) for the job.

@ecka84

It is pretty interesting to see you think the definition somehow prevents printing beyond a certain size. I can only assume you not only do not go to the movies, the resolution/size ratio being what it is, but turn up your nose at all pre-2016 imagery.

As to your comment, ultra-high-def won't make you a better photographer either. Ultra-high-def won't make a bad picture good, nor make a good picture better. I am not a professional by any means, but certainly know enough to state that if you think resolution is holding you back, you have deeper issues with your photography than you imagine.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2021 at 16:41 UTC
On article Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated? (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Silver: Killer sharpness certainly has its uses, notably in creating charts and images where I can show off how detailed a fingernail or zit is. But honestly after a point it stops being such a reality. People who argue an image will be blown up on a billboard and make a difference are.... wrong. No one sees a billboard close enough to note how sharp the eyelashes are, or long enough to see it, or even care. Can you think of a single instance? So yes, you don't want an image that is all fuzzy where it should not be, but be realistic about what is seen or not.

I've been part of a group of people enjoying legacy lenses on a modern camera and it is a real pleasure. My favorite for now is the Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f/1.4 (picked up for $15) which is quite sharp in the center as of f/1.7. As in sharp enough for me to be happy with the results. Corners will still be soft, but when shooting f/1.7 I am not trying for a landscape image, so it is quite irrelevant. Choose the tool (or settings) for the job.

I guess it's an underlying difference in how we look at photos. When I look at an image the first things I look at are the subject, the composition, the framing, the lighting, the colors. I can't even recall the last time I looked at an image of any size and began to study the sharpness of the minutiae. In fact, even when I'm looking at technical details, the ones that I look at are chromatic aberration and the quality of the bokeh (if a factor). Sharpness quite literally is never a consideration unless it's actively hurting the image because the focus was off.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2021 at 15:25 UTC
On article Why are modern 50mm lenses so damned complicated? (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

Albert Silver: Killer sharpness certainly has its uses, notably in creating charts and images where I can show off how detailed a fingernail or zit is. But honestly after a point it stops being such a reality. People who argue an image will be blown up on a billboard and make a difference are.... wrong. No one sees a billboard close enough to note how sharp the eyelashes are, or long enough to see it, or even care. Can you think of a single instance? So yes, you don't want an image that is all fuzzy where it should not be, but be realistic about what is seen or not.

I've been part of a group of people enjoying legacy lenses on a modern camera and it is a real pleasure. My favorite for now is the Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f/1.4 (picked up for $15) which is quite sharp in the center as of f/1.7. As in sharp enough for me to be happy with the results. Corners will still be soft, but when shooting f/1.7 I am not trying for a landscape image, so it is quite irrelevant. Choose the tool (or settings) for the job.

"60" prints require decent optics"

No, they just require a decent printer. I'm pretty sure 60" prints existed before.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2021 at 15:11 UTC
Total: 342, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »