ksgant

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 31, 2006

Comments

Total: 111, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Leica teases 'Mini M' for 11th June release (302 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dennis: I have no idea whether to give any credence to the rumors of a full frame Sony NEX camera in 2014, but if there is any truth to it, then an affordable LV-only Lecia M mount camera might be a way of heading off competition from a FF Nex body that could (possibly) be used with Leica M lenses via adapter.

But would a full-frame NEX camera be able to use the current NEX lenses? Any know if their imaging circle would encompass a full-frame? Or would we need special lenses so we have to continue on the DX vs. FX thing that Nikon has now?

Link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 18:16 UTC
In reply to:

AndyHWC: they should make it available to non-google+ users. Why force users join Google+? Too many privacy settings to check. :(

Seriously, you need to get a grip. And Microsoft knew exactly what it was doing when it made that Application for Windows 8. They KNEW it was against the terms of service to strip out advertisements, AND it also allowed downloading of the content, which is also another no-no. Now, Microsoft knew this, they had to of known this and they also knew that Google would issue a take-down. It was a trap, so they can continue on with their "Screwgled" campaign. It's interesting that they decided to drop this right before Google I/O also.

Weird though that you're asking Google to stop asking Microsoft to kill it's app because it strips out advertisement, then say "nothing is free". Exactly, nothing is free....which is why the advertisements are there!

Link | Posted on May 20, 2013 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

Lea5: Our agency upgraded last October to several Creative Suites CS6 and paid thousands of Euros. Now we can't upgrade camera RAW? Just fu.. camera addings for us?
Adobe you are a f..joke and I hope you fail. You deserve the Kodak moment!
I guess you get flamethrowered at Facebook again today. I'm glad we ordered Capture One.

My assertion that it's a monthly bill is aimed for professionals. For me it's a simple matter of transferring it as a business expense at the end of the year for taxes. Seriously, it's not even a blip on the radar in the cost of me doing business. I certainly didn't mean to "offend" you in any way and I thought I was being clear about the difference between business use and personal use and was mainly addressing Lea5 as he was saying it was for his agency.

As I said, if you're simply using Photoshop for personal use, this obviously wouldn't work out for you or justify making that monthly expense. They'll need to rethink how people that only occasionally need Photoshop to use it. In the end, the way they used to do their business model of just selling packaged software is probably the best way to go for everyone. Use it everyday or stick it in a drawer and use it once a month both would be covered....just like it used to be.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2013 at 13:02 UTC
In reply to:

Lea5: Our agency upgraded last October to several Creative Suites CS6 and paid thousands of Euros. Now we can't upgrade camera RAW? Just fu.. camera addings for us?
Adobe you are a f..joke and I hope you fail. You deserve the Kodak moment!
I guess you get flamethrowered at Facebook again today. I'm glad we ordered Capture One.

Um...CS6 is getting near the end of it's lifecycle and even if Creative Cloud didn't exist, you wouldn't get any major updates until CS7...just like when you went from CS1 to CS2, or CS2 to CS3 etc. There were only a few updates in between the paid updates on all those versions just as it was for CS5 to CS6 and now with CS6.

And good luck with Capture One. You DO realize that Capture One is mostly a replacement for just Lightroom/Camera Raw, yes? It's not a Photoshop replacement. There IS no Photoshop replacement. I know that's a bitter pill to swallow.

Also, if this is your agency that's doing the upgrades then it shouldn't be a huge problem. It's just the cost of doing business. If you're a hobbiest or amateur, I can see this being hard financially on you. But for a business it goes to just a monthly expense like anything else like electricity and rent. This shouldn't be a problem. Also, if Adobe fails and becomes another Kodak, how will your agency fair? What will you use then?

Link | Posted on May 17, 2013 at 12:24 UTC
On article More pictures leak of purported Olympus PEN 'E-P5' (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: 1/8000 shutter, 1/320 flash sync.

1/320 sync for the built-in flash only. Off camera flash sync is still 1/250.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 06:41 UTC
On article Just Posted: Detailed hands-on Olympus PEN E-P5 preview (312 comments in total)
In reply to:

NZ Scott: If this had weather sealing and a built-in EVF I would buy it immediately.

Of course, the OM-D E-M5 has those features, but I don't like the way that camera handles.

From the looks of it, this will probably handle about the same as the OM-D. Maybe the controls are a little different, but it's the same size essentially.

The lack of a built-in viewfinder is a killer for me though.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 06:37 UTC
In reply to:

forpetessake: I don't understand people fascinated with this lens. It's equivalent to 24-70/5.6 on full frame, but doesn't achieve anywhere close resolution, it offers pretty low value for money.

I still have an old Pentax-FA 24-90mm/3.5-4.5 lens which is almost the same size and weight, covers bigger range, collects significantly more light, and have a lot better resolution on FF too. Did I mention Pentax is several times cheaper? Even using 10 year old technology we should have had the same size and weight 12-45mm/1.7-2.2 m4/3 zoom at 1/3 the price. If they ever make a 1:2 focal reducer, that what one will get using that Pentax lens.

Great achievement, Panasonic made a less capable zoom at much higher price.

You've got it a little wrong. The equivalent to this would be a 24-70/2.8 on a full frame. The different crop factors of cameras only effect the depth-of-field, NOT the light gathering capabilities.

For instance, you take a hand-held light meter and you meter a scene and it comes out to be 1/500th of a second at f/2.8. You dial in 1/500th of a second and f/2.8 on your full frame camera as you would a micro 4/3rds camera. You don't do any conversion in your head to make the exposure different for the 4/3rds camera. You dial it in the exact same as you would for any other camera.

Depth-of-field wise it's a little different, but NOT with exposure or light-gathering capabilities.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2013 at 05:41 UTC

I like the "mini-boom" idea. That's kind of the limitation with these small flash softboxes, being able to position then when the lightstand comes up through the bottom of it.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2013 at 14:50 UTC as 10th comment
On article Olympus m.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 first impressions and samples (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

yabokkie: > Another bokeh-less fast lens for m4/3.

like it or not, at the same angle of view (forget focal length), more bokeh means faster and less bokeh means slower. this is physics that no one can break.

this is because both bokeh and light collecting capability are controlled by a single factor, the aperture size (diameter or area). they just change accordingly as the aperture changes so we cannot separate them. they change exactly the same way regardless of whatever format we use.

at the same angle of view, the lens cannot be fast if there is no bokeh.

look at all the cameras from 645 to mobile phones, you can see all of them line up straight, that the depth of field is hard-wired with image quality (resulted from light collecting capability).

more depth of field, less light/more noise collected.

is there an ignore feature for filtering out people that are full of BS? I think there used to be, but I can't seem to find it anymore. They need to put that feature back in.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2013 at 19:46 UTC
On article Olympus m.Zuiko 17mm F1.8 first impressions and samples (255 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: Sometimes I feel like Olympus aught to put out a 17.5mm f0.9 lens for $2000 that weighs a f-in pound just to end the debate. Would anyone actually want the thing? Here's your truly fast glass... that's so big and heavy your entire purpose for buying our camera bodies is kind of out the window.BTW, it also costs as much as a FF body does to begin with. Does anyone actually think it would sell? What purpose would it serve? Yes you have equivalent light gathering to a 35mm f1.8 on a D600 or something but... you paid just about equivalent and it weighs just about equivalent too. What, exactly, is the point of that?

yabokkie, you really REALLY need to stop with the "f-stop equivalent" nonsense because that's exactly what it is.

17.5mm f/0.9 is a 35mm f/0.9 focal length in m4/3. You may be talking about "depth of field", but you're talking about a different animal. Exposure is the same. You hold a light meter up, get an exposure for like 1/60th at f/2.8 and you put that into your FF cam or m4/3 cam. You do NOT go "oh, i must add two extra stops to the m4/3 to get the right exposure".

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2013 at 15:41 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: 85mm equivalent f1.2. Not too shabby at all. (I'm not sure why people are having a hard time with the 42.5x2 math.)

150mm f2.8 could be a killer sports lens if the focus can keep up. Not sure who else really needs a lens that long and fast (and probably expensive).

The aperture is the same though as is the exposure for m4/3. When hand-held metering, you still meter and set the camera shutter speed, aperture and ISO the same. You don't go "oh, wait, must add two more stops of light to this because it's m4/3".

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2013 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: 85mm equivalent f1.2. Not too shabby at all. (I'm not sure why people are having a hard time with the 42.5x2 math.)

150mm f2.8 could be a killer sports lens if the focus can keep up. Not sure who else really needs a lens that long and fast (and probably expensive).

The equivalence is to an 85mm f1.2 lens, not f/2.4. It's still the amount of light that's coming through that aperture.

It's only considered f/2.4 when dealing with depth-of-field equivalence, not low-light performance. Why is everyone having a hard time with this?

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2013 at 08:32 UTC
On article The Lightroom catalog (299 comments in total)
In reply to:

tbcass: I like everything about Lightroom except the cataloging feature. I like to organize my photos by year and month. The necessity of having to import photos into the catalog is a royal pain in the A!!! I don't like it and wish I could turn off the cataloging feature and use it as a plain browser/editor..

Seriously, you tell Lightroom how YOU want it to work, it doesn't make you do anything.

I import my images straight off my flash card, into a folder structure on my HD that's broken down into year/month/job. When I have a new job for December for instance, and I throw my card into the reader, Lightroom fires up and I point to where I want it to import the images. It will even make a new folder which I name (according to the Job) and put the images into that folder on my HD.

I can't understand how everyone is having so much problems with this concept. It's boggling my mind. LR is about the easiest program I've ever used.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2012 at 07:51 UTC
On article The Lightroom catalog (299 comments in total)
In reply to:

khaw: I prefer to process some images in ACR of CS6, Nikon's Capture NX 2 or Capture One. How would LR4 fit into this scenario as an organizing principle?

LR's image editing is basically a vamped up version of Camera Raw. The same editing tools are in Camera Raw that comes with Photoshop CS6...just not in a pretty interface (though it seems some below will even argue it's not a pretty interface).

If your workflow involves Bridge-Photoshop and other editing tools and it's working for you, stick with it.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2012 at 07:32 UTC
On article The Lightroom catalog (299 comments in total)
In reply to:

wazu: I work on a laptop for image editing and do not want to store the images in my Pictures folder, which is where LR4 imports them to from a flash card. For the life of me I could not find anywhere in the preferences to change the user/Pictures folder to a folder on an external drive. However when I decided to just copy the pitcures manually to an external drive and then let LR import them it does not then copy to my internal User/Pictures folder. This means I cannot simply use LR to import directly from the camera cards. This is the first annoying 'feature' I find to be not only confusing but non-intuitive and inconsistant. I also,would like a simple feature where I could flag my better pictures so that a backup to another seperate external drive would safeguard my keepers. Is this just too much to ask for?

LR imports the images to wherever you wish them to go.

Yes, you can import directly from a camera card to wherever you want. Just because it "defaults" to somewhere doesn't mean that you can't change that.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2012 at 07:24 UTC
On article The Lightroom catalog (299 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnyP: a few issues:
- Adobe LR is an ugly and slow product. I can forgive ugly, but can't forgive slow. That's on a Intel Quad Core CPU with enough RAM and an SSD drive (images are on a conventional 7200RPM drive)
- Tagging of pictures takes time that i don't have
- LR interface is not intuitive (at least to me).
- Junk Adobe installs along with LR is troubling (all kinds of executables get started ever time you boot a computer after LR installation)
- it costs too much
- doesn't solve the physical location issue (backups of my computer still contain just folders organized by some other method, not what is shown in LR)
- import process is annoying
- adobe bridge is a half joking attempt to recreate a Windows Explorer
- meta-data is not my best friend (maybe yours), not everyone needs to tag a blue flower picture with words "blue" and "flower".
- Creating a logical structure inside the LR vs physical structure on the HD is not really different or faster.

Article is not really useful

1. Slow and ugly? Hmmm, must be doing something wrong here as it seems okay to me. But hey, we all gauge things differently.
2. Junk Adobe installs? What are you talking about. Can you give me an example of "all kinds of executables"? Or are you making this up to pad out your complaints?
3. It costs hardly anything. But can understand that some people are on a budget.
4. The physical location of my images on my HD are exactly what they are in LR. No idea what you're talking about here.
5. Adobe Bridge has nothing to do with LR and doesn't even come with the program. That comes with Photoshop. Again with the padding of the complaints.
6. You repeated yourself with the "logical structure" argument...which doesn't exist btw.

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2012 at 07:20 UTC
On article The Lightroom catalog (299 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jefftan: A simple question
After import image into lightroom do I now have 2 copies of the image
one in Lightroom and one in original folder?
Thanks

No, you don't. The "catalog" is just a database of where the image is on your HD, the changes you've made to the RAW file and a high-res preview file for working in LR. It's NOT duplicating your image.

I have gigs and gigs of images on my HD from various jobs, yet my catalog is only 1.7GB as it's just a database. If it were duplicating images, I'd run out of HD space a long time ago.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2012 at 22:50 UTC
On article The Lightroom catalog (299 comments in total)

There seems to be a lot of confusion about "duplication". Lightroom does NOT duplicate your RAW. You have one RAW file, and that's that.

Here's my workflow.

1. I fire up Lightroom
2. Insert my card into a reader and it LR brings up the import dialog
3. I have my folder system on my HD broken down into year/month/session. So for instance I'm doing a Smith portrait session in Dec. I navigate to the 2012 folder, then to Dec and choose to create a new folder there called Smith (or whatever) and import everything there.
4. Now, all those images are in ONE PLACE on my HD. I go through, flag the good ones and reject the bad ones. Doing basic WB, camera calib etc. It's saved in .xmp files with the images. That way something like Camera Raw can also see the changes if needed.
5. I then export jpegs for client approval.
6. Back in LR, I then use cmd-E (ctrl-E on PC) to open the images as 16-bit TIFF Files in PS and do my major editing.

7. Other steps, but out of words for this post. :)

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2012 at 22:48 UTC as 78th comment | 1 reply

I went and got the Creative Cloud, as I can get it for a year now for $30 a month, and since now I get all the software they make, we'll see how this goes.

I just used Lightroom and Photoshop CS5 Standard, but so far I love CS6. Love the new interface and everything. No quibbles here with it. And I'm a long time PHotoshop user (probably longer than anyone here I'm guessing...yeah, I'm an old man that started with version 1.0), but I welcome change. I like when things are mixed up. And really, it's not that big of a change.

But hey, I feel for those of you that are slighted by Adobe. They seem to be treated non Creative Cloud owners as second class citizens. It just made sense for me personally and my business to shift the cost of software to operational expenses. And now that I have access to things like Premere and After Effects for instance, I can branch out a little....just a little.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2012 at 20:34 UTC as 69th comment
Total: 111, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »