skytripper

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Sep 22, 2011

Comments

Total: 207, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article JPEG Committee contemplates adding DRM to image format (182 comments in total)

DRM—NO!

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2015 at 18:07 UTC as 36th comment

Try as I might, I cannot understand the attraction of a $3300 fixed-lens camera. It is a beautiful piece of equipment, no doubt. But fixed lens? No thanks! I understand that this camera is aimed at the Leica set, but Leicas are not fixed-lens cameras.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 18:58 UTC as 29th comment | 3 replies

Being a "modern photographer" evidently means producing cheesy crap. Some of these images remind me of the covers of cheap paperback novels. No thanks!

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 18:26 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply

Science doesn't imitate art any more than art imitates nature. The scientist and the artist both aim to reveal aspects of our experience that we might not otherwise be aware of.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2015 at 21:53 UTC as 4th comment
On article Instagram has 400 million active users (28 comments in total)
In reply to:

lemonadedrinker: Are these all the people who walk around with their heads bowed down in supplication to their electronic Lord and Master and who walk into bus stops and trip off pavement edges ?
400 million, well now, the Darwin effect is really taking hold.

It's an essential part of the evolutionary backslide known as "the dumbing down of America". And it's a perfect match for Facebook. All those people who waste their precious time talking about nothing can now waste even more time posting bad photos of nothing.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 05:14 UTC
On article Art Wolfe: Swimming with the Humpbacks, Tonga, 2013 (78 comments in total)
In reply to:

lemonadedrinker: What is all the nonsense with the name across the image? Who cares who took them; they're beautiful pictures ruined with the distraction of the name thing at the bottom-saying to all of us Look at me,I'm as important as the whale.
Eugene Smith never put his name on a picture. Nor did Edward Steichen. Nor any other genius of the arcane art of photography.

They're called a watermarks—duh??? and Art Wolfe is probably the ten millionth professional photographer to use them to protect his work from unauthorized use. The fact that some well-known photographers never used them is totally irrelevant. Some people never lock their doors either.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2015 at 19:50 UTC

.34X magnification may not be true "macro", but it's very impressive for this type of lens. This lens comes as close to being a truly "all in one" design as any I've ever seen—and it's reasonably priced in the bargain. Well done, Tamron!

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 18:35 UTC as 40th comment

The only thing I have to say about film is, "Thank Heaven I don't have to use it anymore!!!"

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2015 at 17:42 UTC as 15th comment

This article is baloney. Virtually all cameras—even expensive DSLR's—can be used in auto-everything mode to take pictures all day long without knowing anything at all about photography. When you look at how consumers use conventional point-and-shoot cameras, it is obvious that today's smartphone cameras are more than good enough for most of them.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2015 at 17:46 UTC as 68th comment
In reply to:

Neil189: Sheesh, more elitist comments from unhappy people taking the liberty to complain about whatever issue they feel they are entitled to complain about. Who cares what you think of the royal family. Everyone here complaining should stick to their whiny little attitudes you know where and comment of the subject at hand. They are uncomfortable with their children being photographed, period. Would you be any different with your children regardless of your circumstance? Get over yourself and save your comments for some other bitch forum, like what I imagine your dinner table would be like.

Have you always been such an offensive twit? Sheesh!

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2015 at 18:31 UTC
On article The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff (233 comments in total)

It's a legitimate style, but most of these images look way over-processed to me—closer to photo illustration than photography.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 18:15 UTC as 18th comment
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (465 comments in total)
In reply to:

backayonder: $9.95 AUD a month for Lightroom and Photoshop less than two mugs of flat white.
Seems a bargain to me. My shelf is littered with worthless copies of Lightroom 1 to 5 and CS versions too.

I don't know anything about the Windows side, but you don't have to upgrade OS X until you need to upgrade your Mac. The moment you buy a new computer, your old Adobe software will probably stop working.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 19:04 UTC
In reply to:

skytripper: Why in heaven's name would anyone with half a brain want to look at photos of this monster? Truly creepy!

Actually, I wouldn't sully my eyeballs by looking at photos of Dick "the Prick" Chaney. Nor would I waste my time speaking for the likes of you. But if you're defending Chaney, well... what does that make you?

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 18:59 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (465 comments in total)
In reply to:

camera4me: A..hole Adobe won't get a penny from me.

Not true. As mentioned in an earlier post, you can use CS6 only as long as your computer and operating system support it. Sticking with older hardware (plus older OS) is not a sustainable strategy in the long run.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 18:50 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (465 comments in total)
In reply to:

GaryJP: More and more people will have less and less compunction about going the piracy route.

This is true. It's hard to argue with the "if you screw me, I'll screw you back" response. Adobe CS6 is actually very easy to hack as long as your computer will run it; but hacking Adobe CC may not be so easy.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 18:48 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (465 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): Creative Cloud = Gives me butterflies and visions of happy unicorns sharing smiles on a green utopian hillside. Then I wake up.

Then you wake up and discover that your $10/mo. subscription just went up to $29.95/mo.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 18:45 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (465 comments in total)
In reply to:

desaint: Oh my freaking g#d...a lot of people complaining here..10 dollar a month three beers less and you are there.
I'ts a ver expensive product to make,you pay thousands of dollars on camera gear but you don't want to pay for your software??
Normal you have to buy it once in the three years and now you pay monthly,i think at the end it's about the same...
And for the illegal downloaders there is enough other software builders you can
use for"free"and then can complain about it:)

In the past, Photoshop users could upgrade every three years for $199. Paying $10 a month for three years costs $360. Photoshop users on a tight budget used to have the option to upgrade their software only when their computer stopped supporting the current version. All of that is gone.
P.S. Not all serious photographers spend "thousands of dollars on camera gear". If you think that, you're living in a very privileged world.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 18:43 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (465 comments in total)
In reply to:

Niklas Ramstedt: Am I the only one here who likes LR and PS CC and is prepared to pay for software?

Paying for software and renting it for life are two entirely different propositions.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 18:35 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (465 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Greer: What a bunch of whining. PS averaged upgrades every 15-18 months at a rough cost of $180. At a $10/month subscription, after 18 months that's $180. Roughly the same as upgrading your license. But I didn't upgrade to every new version you say. Neither did I. I upgraded every over version. So the subscription was a price increase for me. That is, without taking LR into account. When adobe added Lightroom for the same $10, that pretty much evened things out for me. I pay way more for Web based subscriptions that aren't as critical to my business as PS and LR. Netflix is $8/month and it's dirt cheap and it doesn't make me any money. $10/month for PS and LR is a joke. That's more than fair. It's actually underpriced IMO.

For those talking about C1, go to their website. Notice anything? Notice that you have the option of subscribing? For the time being you can buy it. Buy why offer a subscription if you're not intending to go that route exclusively at some point? Software companies cannot survive with people upgrading every blue moon. So they're going this route. I have no problem with it. Especially in this case where the product is so critical to my business and the subscription is ridiculously low.

People who criticize others for voicing legitimate complaints should STFU.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 18:32 UTC
Total: 207, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »