Sal Baker

Lives in United States Boston, United States
Joined on Jan 4, 2004

Comments

Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Conrad567: This is a genius approach to a problem that FUJI has faced since it began making the X series cameras. Nice job FUJI!

But this isn't an "external raw" converter. It uses the same converter the cameras uses. The software is just an external controller device tethered to the camera.

Most people in this forum say they shoot jpeg because they want to get it right in the camera, and they hate sitting at a computer doing PP. This software apparently gives you the exact same output as just using the camera alone, but using it requires sitting at the computer and performing PP. Hopefully Fuji will add choices of output files other than jpeg.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

tom1234567: SO we X-T2 users have to throw 70% of the information away so we can convert to jpegs

is this correct,
and what about converting to DNG

Tom G

@Tom is probably referring to the loss of 70 - 90 percent of the tones/shades that are removed when the RAW file is converted to 8-bit jpeg. I was hoping the new software would allow a simple conversion to an uncompressed 16-bit Tiff file, but apparently not.

When I want a Fuji jpeg my camera will already do that.

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2017 at 18:21 UTC
In reply to:

sdewith: Thanks for the write-up, folks! I'm Sebastiaan, half of the Halide team (I do design, Ben does engineering).

We spent quite some time completely rethinking the app for the iPhone X, and wanted to make sure it works with all the cool new features on this phone. We can do Depth capture, to generate depth maps (you can use these in Photoshop CC 2018, for instance). We output RAW on both cameras. But the UI really was the biggest effort: making sure you can comfortably use the big screen with one hand and using every pixel to keep the viewfinder unobstructed was a goal, and we're glad we did it by launch.

Hope you let us know what you think! Always open to more feature requests and feedback.

Does the app support the image stabilization for both cameras in the RAW files?

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2017 at 01:37 UTC
In reply to:

Tim C.: "Deep Fill is powered by the Adobe Sensei technology—which "uses artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and deep learning"—and trained using millions of real-world images."

I may be overreacting in assuming this, but are the millions of real-world images coming from users who have uploaded their images to Adobe's cloud-based system? If not, where are these millions of images coming from?

They licensed the images from, for $99 per year.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 17:46 UTC

Very poor marketing. I was a vocal supporter of the software after buying it and waiting for it to work properly. I'm not paying $80 to get a more functional version. Any increase in new purchase sales will now be more than offset by people not upgrading, forgetting about On1, and spreading considerable bad word of mouth.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 12:39 UTC as 42nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Mateus1: It's even cheaper then X-E3 witch Fuji aimed for smartphone users.

The cell reception on the X-E3 is horrible.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 12:30 UTC
In reply to:

GRUBERND: great to have choices.
going by the sample, unless you print oversize images in the range of 50 ppi there is not much of a difference. and even then you'd want to do some add-noise processing anyway to make the print pleasing to the eye.
says the guy that has at least four different raw-converters installed, just for choices. =)

Iridient Developer has been refined and updated for many years, specifically on the Mac platform. I would expect that the Windows converter will take a while to catch up in every area.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 18:59 UTC
In reply to:

Shamsheed: Photography was the art of telling stories, capturing moments and emotions. Photographers were the journalists of time.

It has become more of a fashion. The new trend is about style.

There is a line that should be drawn for when a photo remains a photo, and when it becomes an artwork. And called as such.

LET THE DEBATE BEGINS....

There is no accepted scientific definition of art, at least not one that many would agree on. A cat can be defined objectively, with scientific precision. Most people wouldn't call a cat art, but art can have almost any interpretation. My wife enjoys the "art of cooking." :)

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2016 at 13:15 UTC
In reply to:

Shamsheed: Photography was the art of telling stories, capturing moments and emotions. Photographers were the journalists of time.

It has become more of a fashion. The new trend is about style.

There is a line that should be drawn for when a photo remains a photo, and when it becomes an artwork. And called as such.

LET THE DEBATE BEGINS....

I'm fairly proficient at watercolor and acrylic painting, and photography/printmaking. In my experience the photographer creative community is the only one that demands adherence to word definitions and insists on lines being drawn. Interestingly, I've never had any end-users or print purchasers raise these concerns. The work is what it is no matter how many words are throws at it.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 13:25 UTC

I agree fatdeeman. It all comes down to the quality and accuracy of the mask. Most photographers sometimes encounter the huge DR difference between the ground and the sky in some lighting conditions. I'm sure they still consider themselves to real photographers if they bracket and use HDR, use graduated ND devices, or push raw files to the extreme in PP.

The ability to easily take a bracketed shot and replace a blown out sky with a shorter exposure (taken a fraction of a second later) would be very useful if the masking is done well.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 13:16 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Alexander Raemer: The way it's going there won't be any real photographers around soon. I always thought the challenge in photography was to go out and get the shot in one photo.

Thankfully, at least for me, the target audience is not other photographers. I had prints in 10 shows last year, more this coming year. People looking at and purchasing art never, ever, talk about being lied to, or would even consider needing a list of edits made to a photo.

The only reason anyone here gets "agressive" is they are amazed that an artistic community is outraged by what tools, techniques, and philosophies are used and available to others.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 14:57 UTC

Isn't it nice that no one is forced to buy or use such software? So who cares?

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 14:36 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

razadaz: Very few photographs have ever been a simple matter of record. Printing lighter or darker, altering contrast levels, and even cropping can dramatically alter the original image. People were air brushing and retouching images long before photoshop came along.

I've replaced seascape skies with the sky from the same series 5 min. later. My only issue with this software is that there was no talk about the "quality" if the mask itself. An instant, accurate mat edge would be a useful tool.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 13:27 UTC
In reply to:

Snapper2013: That girl clapping and woohooing is a babe!!!!!

Ansel was part of the problem. Once he removed all color from the world he was dead to me. From what I hear, Photoshop will also remove all your color using their special software. B@st@rds!!

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 15:38 UTC
In reply to:

Fishchris: Too many purists here. How do i type a big LOUD Fart sound ? :) Lol
This sounds awesome !
It's all about the end product ! How one gets there is completely not important.

Of course it's photography. The word "Photoshop" became a verb for a reason. It's up to photographers to decide how aggressively they wish to work on their own shots for artistic expression.

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 12:54 UTC
On article Fujifilm X70 Review (377 comments in total)
In reply to:

saeba77: i really can't understand why i need this camera or the ricoh?
i can buy the t10 or a6000 or a6300 or xa2 or ecc , mount a prime f2.8 and obtain the same image quality (well may be better) in a body more or less same spec

"Magic" is when Vogue photographers prefer to shoot with an X-70.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 13:05 UTC
On article Fujifilm X70 Review (377 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: Think this will win the "wait till the camera is half price award"... Hey at least we know Fuji can make a touch me screen... Hope the put it in the XT2...

Not 50 percent, but with the many less than stellar reviews the price will drop to the GR II price fairly quickly. Nikon tried overpricing the A at launch, and that didn't work out so well for them.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 12:48 UTC
On article Fujifilm X70 Review (377 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo perzon: The GR JPEGs are horrible in color. Reds and oranges are all messed up. Most glowing reviews say it is best for B/W. If you look at GR samples people have a grey zombie skin color. Indoors it focuses really slowly. Nikon A has great JPEGs.

I shoot the GR II and Fuji RAW all the time. Other than sharpness the files are indistinguishable in large prints, color is great in both. But B&W is indeed rendered better from the GR.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 12:44 UTC
On article Fujifilm X70 Review (377 comments in total)
In reply to:

John Gellings: I use both the GR II and the X70. Both are quality cameras for actual photography.

Yes, the last thing I want from a comprehensive pro technical camera/lens review is anyone looking too close to the images!

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 12:33 UTC
On article Fujifilm X70 Review (377 comments in total)
In reply to:

turvyT: The review can be disappointing (for some) and the image quality test not satisfactory, and the sensor old, and the video crap, but the image gallery is very very nice, with more interesting images than many others taken by maybe sharper devices with newer sensors. I guess usability and fun of use makes you a better photographer too.

So it's true? The camera makes the photographer? Usually folks are ranting around here that a new camera won't make you a better photographer. It's a new paradigm!

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2016 at 12:16 UTC
Total: 34, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »