keepreal

keepreal

Lives in United Kingdom Enfield, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired, was Information Technology Manager
Joined on Mar 24, 2007
About me:

Amateur with a passion for pictorial photography of more than fifty years. Likes to communicate and learn from others with expert knowledge, especially if they also live in the real world, have galleries or links to really good photos and put their camera to good use.

Comments

Total: 379, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Panasonic Lumix G9: What you need to know (245 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: When a flyweight takes on the heavy weights, a camera needs some quality features and this camera certainly seems to have some. Except that the G9 is middleweight with a flyweight sized sensor.

Sergey Borachev below says this is a camera that is not too heavy or expensive. Compared with my Nikon D610, the Panasonic Lumix G9 is 4mm shorter, 16mm less tall, 10mm thicker and 192g, a fair amount lighter. Given that it has advanced features that mine does not have, that's not bad until you take into account that the sensor has only 26% of the area of full frame and about 52% of APS-C.

IMO that makes the most advanced MFT cameras ridiculous. They are fairly big and quite heavy. So you have a choice of full frame or APS-C with either OVF or EVF - if you like EVF and mirrorless with a moderate amount less bulk and weight - or MFT if you have been brainwashed into a platform that started out sensibly enough but now at the top of the range has been designed for those with MFT sized brains.

Wrong @Gray Harman. You cannot accuse someone of trolling just because their views differ from yours, unless you are a bigot, of course. Are you?

I have one of the sensibly sized MFTs as a second camera. And I agree, you can get good results in decent light but, unless they are smaller and lighter in proportion to their sensor size, what is the point?

And @mferencz, if you add many of the MFT lenses, that makes matters even worse.

And "gentlemen", with few comments and no gear no photos on board to show your worth or lack of it, you could try a little harder to say something that raises a valid point or two.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 15:16 UTC
On article Panasonic Lumix G9: What you need to know (245 comments in total)

When a flyweight takes on the heavy weights, a camera needs some quality features and this camera certainly seems to have some. Except that the G9 is middleweight with a flyweight sized sensor.

Sergey Borachev below says this is a camera that is not too heavy or expensive. Compared with my Nikon D610, the Panasonic Lumix G9 is 4mm shorter, 16mm less tall, 10mm thicker and 192g, a fair amount lighter. Given that it has advanced features that mine does not have, that's not bad until you take into account that the sensor has only 26% of the area of full frame and about 52% of APS-C.

IMO that makes the most advanced MFT cameras ridiculous. They are fairly big and quite heavy. So you have a choice of full frame or APS-C with either OVF or EVF - if you like EVF and mirrorless with a moderate amount less bulk and weight - or MFT if you have been brainwashed into a platform that started out sensibly enough but now at the top of the range has been designed for those with MFT sized brains.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 14:17 UTC as 44th comment | 14 replies
In reply to:

brycesteiner: I see in comments people don't want to leave Lightomb because they have their catalogs of images. My question:

Why do people keep their images in massive catalogs? Why not just make each shoot or job it's own catalog and then switching to another program is no problem. You still have the old pictures, you still have the old program to edit the old catalog, you still have the old RAW files. What stops you from just switching to a new program for your next shoot?

Do you go back and edit the wedding pictures from 3 years ago (or another shoot)? For me I don't go back and edit (maybe cropping) if someone buys the picture. I print the JPG made at the time of export. After I export my pictures and I'm pretty much done and the catalog itself isn't a huge loss if something does happen (I still backup, but I'm not afraid to try something new even though it may not be compatible with old catalog). I might try the RAW file in another program just to see what I can get but that is it.

I cannot agree with the argument that multiple catalogs are not good because they obstruct key searches. Yes, that is a fact but the issue is taking loads and loads of shots of rubbish and hanging onto all of it. If you only take pictures worth taking and throw out the rejects that did not work out, a simple folder tree structure is all that you are likely to need.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 07:18 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: FYI, Macphun has said a demo will be available once the program is released for sale (not in pre-order state), and that there is a money back guarantee for those who order/pre-order and end up not liking the program. This is based on my conversation with them on FB.

I have their last Beta installed on my computer, but I wonder if there were any features that were left out of the 30-day beta trial. Either way, it might be worth the $69 for hobbyists or those who feel intimidated by PS and LR in my opinion. IT's not as extensive as PS and LR but well worth the look based on my experience with the beta so far. They also say that it will have a DAM as well built-in. They would not elaborate on whether a LR catalog could be imported (based on their response to my question regarding that) but said they would go into more detail once it's released. So I guess we'll have to wait on that question.

Extremely well said. The beta does suggest it is marketed at cretins and I doubt this will change.

I did try out several of the "filters" and almost all of the results were totally ridiculous. So what are they there for if not those foolish enough to be impressed by the large number of them rather than their lack of quality. Besides they are not filters, they are presets of various combinations of adjustable settings like contrast, vibrance etc. Even worse, most of those adjustment controls are hidden in the beta until you invoke them by one of the "filters" that uses them. Just try and use them on their own and you will see what I mean. In that situation, there is next to nothing shown that you can adjust.

IMO it was not only designed for cretins but also designed by cretins. At least the beta was!

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2017 at 07:07 UTC
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: FYI, Macphun has said a demo will be available once the program is released for sale (not in pre-order state), and that there is a money back guarantee for those who order/pre-order and end up not liking the program. This is based on my conversation with them on FB.

I have their last Beta installed on my computer, but I wonder if there were any features that were left out of the 30-day beta trial. Either way, it might be worth the $69 for hobbyists or those who feel intimidated by PS and LR in my opinion. IT's not as extensive as PS and LR but well worth the look based on my experience with the beta so far. They also say that it will have a DAM as well built-in. They would not elaborate on whether a LR catalog could be imported (based on their response to my question regarding that) but said they would go into more detail once it's released. So I guess we'll have to wait on that question.

As I wrote to you privately, if all all on your list is going to appear in the release, I would have expected most of it in the beta and the opportunity to form a meaningful opinion. What was available was anything but.

Yes, you offer a 30 Days Money Back Guarantee but that is not the same as a proper beta release and the opportunity to decide unencumbered.

My improved user experience is not to bother. If you had pushed out the boundary in what software can do, I am sure the beta would have been your way of saying so and its absence is a virtual guarantee of the opposite.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 18:32 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: I see in comments people don't want to leave Lightomb because they have their catalogs of images. My question:

Why do people keep their images in massive catalogs? Why not just make each shoot or job it's own catalog and then switching to another program is no problem. You still have the old pictures, you still have the old program to edit the old catalog, you still have the old RAW files. What stops you from just switching to a new program for your next shoot?

Do you go back and edit the wedding pictures from 3 years ago (or another shoot)? For me I don't go back and edit (maybe cropping) if someone buys the picture. I print the JPG made at the time of export. After I export my pictures and I'm pretty much done and the catalog itself isn't a huge loss if something does happen (I still backup, but I'm not afraid to try something new even though it may not be compatible with old catalog). I might try the RAW file in another program just to see what I can get but that is it.

Footnote

The version of Photoshop I use is CS2. No catalog there, thank goodness. I won it in a magazine competition in 2003 demonstrating what I could do with Elements 2 and have stuck with it rather than update to later versions. I did try some of them but decided not to line Adobe's pockets. I thought it more important to develop real skills with the core functionality rather than pay for the confusion of busier interfaces and bells and whistles I would not need with growing experience.

And that is exactly what has been the case. I did have to resort to another program to develop from RAW when I bought up to date cameras. But then, what I use gives far better tones and flexibility. I would not want to use ACR 2.4 in CS2 even if I could nor ACR in any later version for that matter.

QED

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 15:19 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: I see in comments people don't want to leave Lightomb because they have their catalogs of images. My question:

Why do people keep their images in massive catalogs? Why not just make each shoot or job it's own catalog and then switching to another program is no problem. You still have the old pictures, you still have the old program to edit the old catalog, you still have the old RAW files. What stops you from just switching to a new program for your next shoot?

Do you go back and edit the wedding pictures from 3 years ago (or another shoot)? For me I don't go back and edit (maybe cropping) if someone buys the picture. I print the JPG made at the time of export. After I export my pictures and I'm pretty much done and the catalog itself isn't a huge loss if something does happen (I still backup, but I'm not afraid to try something new even though it may not be compatible with old catalog). I might try the RAW file in another program just to see what I can get but that is it.

Part 2 of 2

Then when done, the finished result goes to F:\PHOTO\ARCHIVE\PSD\Scotland 2017\ in this instance for the final layered version, just in case later I want to change it, and into F:\PHOTO\ARCHIVE\JPEG\Scotland 2017\ if I also wish to keep the result for printing or display. If that is sharpened, as it usually is as the last step, I append "$" so I am left in no doubt.

For me no need for all this catalog nonsense and being forced in unnecessary complications or restrictions, at least IMO. After all, I use a number of software program where strengths and weakness are distributed among them. For, unless you only use Photoshop or Lightroom and programmes that can run from within them and its catalog, you are in trouble.

And what about the future, as things change and new software comes to market? As Photoshop users found some while ago and now with Lightroom the same.

Many of you are stuffed and only because you did not think ahead.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 14:48 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: I see in comments people don't want to leave Lightomb because they have their catalogs of images. My question:

Why do people keep their images in massive catalogs? Why not just make each shoot or job it's own catalog and then switching to another program is no problem. You still have the old pictures, you still have the old program to edit the old catalog, you still have the old RAW files. What stops you from just switching to a new program for your next shoot?

Do you go back and edit the wedding pictures from 3 years ago (or another shoot)? For me I don't go back and edit (maybe cropping) if someone buys the picture. I print the JPG made at the time of export. After I export my pictures and I'm pretty much done and the catalog itself isn't a huge loss if something does happen (I still backup, but I'm not afraid to try something new even though it may not be compatible with old catalog). I might try the RAW file in another program just to see what I can get but that is it.

Part 1 of 2

Yes, I keep all my NEF files in a folder called F:\PHOTO\ARCHIVE\NEF\ subdivided eg. Scotland 2017. I use an external drive of 2TB so if my computer crashes, a far greater likelihood I will not lose important files, even before I back up, and can use the drive on another PC, not just for photos either.

I do not want my RAW originals, to my way of thinking, corrupted by any changes even if they are reversible or stored elsewhere in XMP files. What then if I want to use another program that does not recognise the XMP or whatever? That to me is just a nuisance and I would need to be sure they are not overlooked or have become redundant.

So, when I develop from RAW I put the result from a separate program for that as a TIFF in F:\PHOTO\PROCESSING\ for my work in progress and rename intermediate states of work on it as N200699@ME_n.PSD with n changed from 1 to 2... as I progress in Photoshop. The @ME tells me I used Machinery HDR Effects rather than @PG for PTGui etc.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 14:48 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: Following on from what dpreviewblog has just said, I literally have just loaded the beta and tried it out. Thought I'd better to be ready if to buy at the offer price and not miss out.

It is, as I suspected, a load of presets, many with silly unhelpful names and many, many more available to download from https://macphun.com/luminar/new-presets?product=luminar_sc.

The presets may be various configured sets of settings of legitimate controls but most I tried gave daft results for a given image, probably only one or two are of any use for any single image. And while the GUI is clean and tidy it is about as bald as a plucked chicken, not even a browser from which to choose which image to open. Slow too.

No thanks. I an just about to cancel my account with them and halt their emails too. I would not use it if they paid me and even if the 2018 release is better, the beta is so bad you have to wonder if the guys who built did so between sessions in therapy. And I do not mean Raw Therapee.

If you cannot meaningfully judge the final product from the beta then what is the point of it other than to lure people into its orbit?

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 11:48 UTC

Following on from what dpreviewblog has just said, I literally have just loaded the beta and tried it out. Thought I'd better to be ready if to buy at the offer price and not miss out.

It is, as I suspected, a load of presets, many with silly unhelpful names and many, many more available to download from https://macphun.com/luminar/new-presets?product=luminar_sc.

The presets may be various configured sets of settings of legitimate controls but most I tried gave daft results for a given image, probably only one or two are of any use for any single image. And while the GUI is clean and tidy it is about as bald as a plucked chicken, not even a browser from which to choose which image to open. Slow too.

No thanks. I an just about to cancel my account with them and halt their emails too. I would not use it if they paid me and even if the 2018 release is better, the beta is so bad you have to wonder if the guys who built did so between sessions in therapy. And I do not mean Raw Therapee.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 21:57 UTC as 40th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

keepreal: If you go to the page where you can pre-order Luminar, it quotes prices for where I am in the UK in GBP. So I have sent them a message asking them the following:

"According to DP Review, new users can purchase Luminar at a special pre­order price of $59. Yet for UK customers you are charging 53 GBP. According to [official] Visa exchange rates [that would apply paying by credit card] today, that is $69.81 and is very unfair. Please correct or justify this ASAP while I consider whether to pre-order."

What you say is true but with online there is no justifiable reason to differentiate. The Nikon D850 at B&H Photo costs $3,296.95, which is 2,503.13 GBP. You would have considerable difficulty buying one here for less than 3,499 GBP!

I lived in Toronto for twelve years and salaries generally were about double while the cost of living was close to half. Then, coming back to London - forced by my ex with the children and not knowing that 14 years later that was what she'd choose to be - back to the miserable differences that made me leave in the first place, not just money but complacency too, although that has improved a little.

I am no economist but my theory is that North Americans get paid more and spend more, the two hand in hand making the economy work. If we were able to change to that here we might not get taken for such a ride with unfair pricing from international companies.

The UK price I quoted includes the VAT. I presume the US price includes their equivalent.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 19:49 UTC

If you go to the page where you can pre-order Luminar, it quotes prices for where I am in the UK in GBP. So I have sent them a message asking them the following:

"According to DP Review, new users can purchase Luminar at a special pre­order price of $59. Yet for UK customers you are charging 53 GBP. According to [official] Visa exchange rates [that would apply paying by credit card] today, that is $69.81 and is very unfair. Please correct or justify this ASAP while I consider whether to pre-order."

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 18:54 UTC as 53rd comment | 6 replies

I wonder if this software is designed for serious work or to appeal to prospective buyers. The idea that armed with a myriad of filters, one can make a masterpiece out of any raw image (pun intended) just like that is appealing, but I have my doubts, even if some are intelligent rather than passive.

I suspect one needs the understanding of and expertise with something like Photoshop and the investment of many, many hours to gain the skills to do that by applying consecutively between one and a few transformations, more often than not with local editing rather than always making changes to the overall image.

So is Luminar a collection of filters with a little bit more or a lot of quality processing tools plus the bonus of filters, a few of which occasionally may actually be useful?

What do you think?

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 15:11 UTC as 94th comment | 3 replies

What a great idea. I am going to sell my D610 and go back to film because of this.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 15:21 UTC as 8th comment
On article Photo story of the week: I Am Legend (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

stevo23: Needs a crop to be more compelling, I like the rest.

100% crop.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 19:59 UTC

IMPORTANT One valuable piece of information few will know about is this, something I learned a long time ago from another DPR reader.

In the Adobe DNG Converter, go into Preferences, then Compatability then Custom and if you select DNG 1.4 Linear (demosaiced) the behaviour is this. Instead of coding the file output with your camera and lens profiles, the converter will apply them. The result is a much larger file but has the benefit of not having to use a follow up program that can decode them.

So, if you are thinking of abandoning Lightroom and are will to use this, free until now, that will cater for most cameras, even recently released models and should enable you to use any other program that accepts DNG 1.4.

My advice is to check that out with a trial version of the replacement to Lightroom just in case, whatever version of DNG you intend to use.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 19:42 UTC as 159th comment
In reply to:

JOrmsby: So does this mean they'll no longer be developing and upgrading the standalone version?

Adobe think they have found a way to develop more profit. That is all they are interested in developing. Hence CC at the expense of and instead of standalone users.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 18:08 UTC

What is wrong with Adobe is much the same across almost all software.

I spent most of my life working in information technology and hated it because the standards were so poor with almost everyone. Most of the releases with most software masquerade as upgrades when a lot is to deal with bugs which should not have got past the betas.

The major reason for new versions is profit from fools upgrading when they do not need to. There are genuine reasons, of course, but that is only a proportion. For example, my RAW processor is very good but suffers from the same shortcomings to some degree. What other possible reason could there be for three releases within less than a week?

When I was a programmer I took twice as long as everybody else to get the design finished, so writing the code still left me way behind. However, my programs had very few bugs and needed little testing, having designed them meticulously, so I overtook everyone else on quality and program completion.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 18:05 UTC as 185th comment

I won Photoshop CS2 way back, have stuck with it. I did try later versions but I prefer the cleaner interface and decided that many of the new features were unnecessary if you really put the effort into becoming something of an expert using the core functionality in the way that your images needed.

Then along came Lightroom and I hated it. Regardless of potential interest in any of its features, I turned it down because catalogs were alien to my thinking, still are.

I stopped using Adobe's free Acrobat reader because it was too bug ridden, was constantly being updated, still crashing regularly. Now I use one of the earlier versions of Foxit, which still works properly and is uncomplicated. I use a separate RAW processor so I do not need an update to CS2.

Everything Adobe now is complicated, overblown, costly and they can go to hell. When Photoshop became subscription, the writing was on the wall. What other people are now saying about Adobe does not surprise me. They are sharks.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 16:10 UTC as 236th comment | 6 replies

I do not think Leica owners will be interested in using vaseline, when instead they can fork out £5095/$6495. More madness as with Meyer and others, but you cannot be surrprised that Leitz is also aiming to cash in.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 06:00 UTC as 41st comment | 2 replies
Total: 379, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »