Dyun27

Dyun27

Lives in Southern California
Works as a Creative Director
Joined on Sep 15, 2012

Comments

Total: 60, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

petr marek: Pro level expensive camera is not for beginners.

And yet I see lots of beginners buying pro cameras, because some of them have lots of disposable income and try to acquire the best equipment that money can buy, only to realize that a lot of pro (and even semi-pro) equipment is quite complicated if they don't know what they're doing.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2017 at 19:17 UTC
In reply to:

StevenN: Dear Adobe,

You have just alienated many, many loyal and longtime customers. I hope you will reconsider eliminating your standalone, desktop version of Lightroom. if not, I will be turning to one of your competitor's products for my photo-editing needs.

Good news, everyone! You're not stuck! We all have a choice in the matter. No need to buy or subscribe to anything! If you want to vote on what Adobe should do, don't give them your money and go to their competitors. I for one can't find anything better, but maybe that will change someday.

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

StevenN: Dear Adobe,

You have just alienated many, many loyal and longtime customers. I hope you will reconsider eliminating your standalone, desktop version of Lightroom. if not, I will be turning to one of your competitor's products for my photo-editing needs.

@Jake, I've tried the competitors and reluctantly headed right back to Lightroom and Photoshop days later. Maybe someday these competitors will surpass Adobe, but at this very moment that's not the case from my experience. Adobe still has the upper hand in features and RAW processing in general. The only reason their competitors are cheaper right now, is because they're still behind Adobe and they know it.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 17:42 UTC
In reply to:

StevenN: Dear Adobe,

You have just alienated many, many loyal and longtime customers. I hope you will reconsider eliminating your standalone, desktop version of Lightroom. if not, I will be turning to one of your competitor's products for my photo-editing needs.

How exactly have they alienated many loyal customers? You can still buy the Lightroom 6 stand-alone version and if you want the newest version, it's $10.00 a month with constant updates! That's $120 per year for Lightroom CC, Lightroom CC Classic and Photoshop CC.

Each stand-alone version (Lightroom 6 and Photoshop 6) is about $120. That's $240.00 you pay for both and need to upgrade to a new version eventually. New stand-alone versions of Adobe were going for anywhere from $200 to $500 per program and that was pretty restrictive for a lot of people.

I don't know about a lot of you, but I'd rather pay $120 per year to be able to use the latest software, than buy it and watch it become obsolete with the advancement of technology, such as new cameras, new processing demands and so on. I'd have to buy the new version again eventually anyway, spending hundreds of dollars on stand-alone software.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 17:19 UTC

Tried it on Windows 10 and it is definitely not perfect. Needs plenty of work. I was able to post a couple of images to Instagram, but couldn't do much with them as far as editing goes. I was only able to adjust whether I want a rectangle or square view. I couldn't move the image around, couldn't crop, and couldn't apply any filters even if I wanted to.They were simply not available. The third image was posted without my description and tags and I couldn't edit it in the app to add the description that was missing. Nice idea, but not well-executed at this time.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 16:52 UTC as 14th comment
On article Sharp and wide: Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G gallery updated (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

DFPanno: Not a criticism at all but some of these images highlight the difficulty in effectively utilizing ultra-wides.

That's because ultra wides are designed to make small spaces look bigger. Most people (like I used to) believe that an ultra wide angle of view is going to look more like a panorama, but instead it just makes objects closer to you look farther away and objects in the distance look tiny. I learned that lesson when I bought the IRIX 11mm f/4. I have since learned how to use it effectively and it is a very useful lens, just not always in the areas where I used to believe it would be.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 17:00 UTC
On article Canon EOS Rebel SL2 sample gallery (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

jadot: It's 2017 and still the little boys are finding it necessary to pass approval/disapprove of

a) How a female person is 'squatting' (snigger)
b) How a woman chooses to adorn her body
c) Whether or not a woman has hair anywhere on her body

You little boys are a joke. Get up from your internet slumber and have a look in the mirror, then try to figure out why women have always found you repulsive. Or are you some kind of pimp, where only the "finest Bs & Hs" come up to your hard man standard.

Creep.

Could not agree with you more. The creep factor is so high with these people, they couldn't keep it to themselves even with checks in place. They had the chance to think, read their post and then decide whether or not it was appropriate enough to push the "post" button. They failed on all fronts.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2017 at 09:12 UTC
In reply to:

rbach44: I don’t think this is photography at all, and I don’t think I would be happy if any of my images were used in this way.

That being said, its an interesting conversation in the modern age. What is an authentic photograph in 2017? We take other people’s images and use them for our own ends every day on social media. With ideas and images being copied so commonly and spread so quickly, why is this so much more offensive? Its good conversation and I would be interested to be see how this pans out in court.

BUT… selling these for 6 figures? That seems petty. Starting the conversation and getting the world a bit riled up to make point is something I support. But selling other’s images for large sum of money is not, and seems to discredit an otherwise interesting argument.

The ethical thing to do would be to request the original photographer's permission and let him/her profit from this "artwork" as well, so that they don't feel like something has been stolen from them. I would definitely not appreciate some stranger taking one of my images, printing them and selling them for any amount of money, be it $5.00 or $500,000. Without consent, it is theft, plain and simple.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 16:26 UTC
In reply to:

wildpig1234: Anyone able to order this from anywhere yet? Still seems to be back order on all the usual sources...

It is now shipping in the U.S. Got my copy two weeks ago from B&H. It was a long wait, but worth it!

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2017 at 02:47 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: Nikon should have blocked that Mrs. Green Apple! video, so people in North America and Europe couldn't view it. :-)

And make us miss out on whatever that is? No thank you! 😂😶

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 06:38 UTC

Drugs,........ so many psychoactives.... 😅 Not sure how else to explain it. It's kinda fun and less disturbing than most children's shows these days, but only by a small margin. At least it looks like they're having fun.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 06:37 UTC as 34th comment | 1 reply

Isn't it usually the point to make manipulated images look as believable as possible? Unless the photographer/artist states otherwise, I'm assuming they don't want people to spot the manipulations in order to retain enjoyment of the image.

My first introduction to photo-manipulation was in College, where I learned that some pro Nat Geo photographers removed animals, backgrounds, or rearranged them in order to improve composition & help them illustrate their stories better. I felt a bit crushed by that, because who can I trust for real content, if not Nat Geo?

Nowadays even if I suspect that most photos are manipulated beyond the "natural" reality, I still like to remain ignorant to what parts of the photograph were altered and to what degree. It makes me appreciate it a lot less when I can see the discrepancies. Like magic, I want to be fooled so that I can enjoy it.

If miscarriage of justice is of concern, study the RAW files, not prints, JPEGs or TIFFs.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2017 at 17:17 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

Davud: They need to come up with an improved preview algorithm ASAP.
Generating 1:1 previews for takes forever and the slightest edit in smart previews takes too long to show. Slugfest even on i7 desktop.

Not sure what problem you're having, but I'm working on a 4 year old tablet running Windows 8.1 that doesn't have a dedicated graphics card, and this update has improved the loading speed a lot. 8GB RAM, i7.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

RammerJammer: I've aways thought it was rather silly for someone to tell you that photography isn't about having expensive equipment as they have the $8k body and lens combo hanging around their neck. You almost never see those guys who tell you to just shoot with a smart phone shooting with a smartphone unless they are advertising for the smartphone manufacture.

For those starting out, it's best to learn composition and recognizing important moments on a cheaper starter camera, or even their smart phone.

Learning to take better pictures with a $3,000 set-up is kind of a waste of money if you only take advantage of 5% of its capabilities. By the time you hit its limits, it probably needs to be replaced or repaired.

That money could have been better spent on specialized equipment once the photographer discovers his/her strengths. There's no point in spending hundreds of dollars on landscape lenses when it turns out you're more into portraits, or macro. No point in buying a D5 if you never shoot low light or action.

That's why most experienced photographers keep recommending that you stop focusing on gear and focus on composition and timing first. When you've learned the basics of photography and educated yourself on why some equipment is better than another for YOUR needs, you'll spend your money more wisely.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2017 at 19:51 UTC
On article Video: First look at the Canon EOS 6D Mark II (128 comments in total)

I'm sure loads of people will shoot some beautiful images with this camera, and I'm also sure it's just a bit more capable than the older 6D, which definitely qualifies as an "upgrade". More AF points, swivel screen (which is awesome for tripod work), a bit more resolution, probably a bit more dynamic range as well, faster FPS, etc.

Sure you can get most of these features in the three-year-old, lower-priced D750, but so what? The D750 is awesome! I still love mine. Sorry that it took Canon this long to catch up, but people will enjoy it, just like I see myself enjoying the D750 for at least a few more years.

It's an entry-level full frame camera, so of course it's not going to have 5D Mark IV features. For "entry-level", this thing is going to make a lot of people happy regardless of all the negativity going on here. I'm not a Canon shooter, but I'm pretty sure the 6D Mark II is not going to limit anyone's creativity (save for maybe the video people who've been hoping for 4K).

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2017 at 04:27 UTC as 14th comment
On article Shooting experience: how the Nikon D7500 won me over (196 comments in total)
In reply to:

tom1234567: Waiting for the upgrade to the D7200
I don't want to downgrade to a lesser D7500,
its important I and others have two SD slots and the better IQ plus more,
which the D7200 has
a better upgrade from lesser Dxxxx would be the D7200
that's my point of view on the matter

Tom G

Why not just pick up a refurbished or lightly used D500? I got mine for under $1,500 with 10,000 clicks in near perfect condition.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 00:03 UTC
On article Shooting experience: how the Nikon D7500 won me over (196 comments in total)
In reply to:

blink667: Curious about the 7500's IQ compared to the Fuji XT2.

Just compare the D500 to the Fuji XT2 and you'll have your answer. The D500 and D7500 share the same sensor and Expeed processor. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xt2&attr13_1=nikon_d500&attr13_2=canon_eos5d&attr13_3=canon_eos5d&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-1.0761044176706829&y=-0.9791916037136106

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 00:01 UTC
On photo Lost in snow in the Minimization in Landscape Photography challenge (4 comments in total)

Beautiful. I'm so jealous! I wish we'd get snow more often in Cali.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2016 at 17:50 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Nikon D40 (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dyun27: The D40x was my first Nikon camera and I loved shooting with it. I kept it all these years since early 2008. Two or three years ago when I was between cameras, I pulled it out of the bag again and used it with better lenses. I was impressed with the results!

That being said, it's far too easy to blow highlights with it when photographing white birds or clouds for example, even when setting the EV to -0.7. High ISO images are OK, but shooting above ISO 400 was something I tried to avoid at all cost. Colors are nice, but I sure love the dynamic range and color out of the D610 and D750! As soon as I picked up a D610, the D40x went right back into the bag.

Yet still I can't help but keep it around. :)

It's not a totally different camera, it's pretty much the same thing with 10 megapixels.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 17:41 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Nikon D40 (176 comments in total)

The D40x was my first Nikon camera and I loved shooting with it. I kept it all these years since early 2008. Two or three years ago when I was between cameras, I pulled it out of the bag again and used it with better lenses. I was impressed with the results!

That being said, it's far too easy to blow highlights with it when photographing white birds or clouds for example, even when setting the EV to -0.7. High ISO images are OK, but shooting above ISO 400 was something I tried to avoid at all cost. Colors are nice, but I sure love the dynamic range and color out of the D610 and D750! As soon as I picked up a D610, the D40x went right back into the bag.

Yet still I can't help but keep it around. :)

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 21:29 UTC as 21st comment | 3 replies
Total: 60, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »