Lives in United States Sunny South Florida, United States
Joined on Jul 20, 2009


Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6

Sometimes you can fool almost all of the people almost all of the time! The company makes overpriced bloat-filled garbage and people keep forking over money for it. Most of their software greatly slows computers, and not for the user's benefit, but for Adobe's -- it is the monitoring, and packages that enable them to push more junk that make these programmes so resource-consuming. In many cases they have bought companies making good software and raised the price three to four times without improving the product.

Using DxO, Ifranview, Topaz Filters, and even Gimp, one can do anything with a photo that PhotoShop and Lightroom can do, at a fraction of the price and without installing viruses on the computer. For audio, there are many choices that will do everything that Audition does.

Modern, well-designed websites no longer use Flash.

Do your research, and you can easily do without Adobe!

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2018 at 03:46 UTC as 73rd comment | 11 replies
On article 10 photography books that are banned in Texas prisons (24 comments in total)

This is an article that truly should be ignored. The author makes no attempt to decipher or ascertain the meaning of these decisions. They are simply a vehicle for his snide political comments. Whether he is truly as ignorant as his writing, or if he simply leaves out details that don't suit him, we cannot tell. But, okay, we get it -- he doesn't like Texas because too many people there have the nerve to disagree with him politically. Should we care?

There may a pattern or policy that drives these decisions. We would need to know that to know whether it should be changed. It may well be a stupid policy, but we would never know one way or the other from this.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2017 at 07:39 UTC as 5th comment
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1633 comments in total)

Adobe makes overpriced, overbloated software that makes you pay to slow down your computer. Why does anyone still need them?

A combination of DxO, some Topaz filters, and freeware such as Irfanview and Gimp can do anything they do, less expensively and often more quickly.

Competing PDF readers/writers can do that work well, and many audio editors are just as good a Audition.

Continuing to be impressed by these products is like admiring "The Emporer's New Clothes" -- wake up and try the alternatives!

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2017 at 05:20 UTC as 115th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

(unknown member): PETA cannot sue on behalf of an unidentified entity,1. Wikimedia cannot refuse to follow photographer's edicts 2, because 3: the creative act was the photographers..

Without him there the photograph would not and could not have been taken, and the macaque had no idea of the results of its actions. The US rulings are all just plain stupid as obviously lawyers and judges were corruptly conniving to create an entirely fresh legal pasture to graze in and fatten themselves up on.

All camera makers can equally argue that their machines are what is taking the pictures, all paint and brush manufacturers that their goods paint the paintings, and trainer manufacturers that their footwear have just won titles at Wimbledon and the Olympics!!
This is why Trump's America is an international laughing-stock, .....the sanity of the electorate is to be questioned, and their judiciary!

You started with some logical points, but then showed that you only did that to find a place to spew your political opinions. If you want to do that, find a political website -- either join the chorus on one that agrees with you, or be a troll on one that that dares to share someone else's views. Just please don't do it here.

What you think of any president is irrelevant to this discussion. This was not brought on by Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, or any other specific person (or monkey). It is the product of many years and both parties tolerating a system where anyone can sue for almost anything, no matter how ridiculous.

In summary, let's stay focused on photography. (pun intended)

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 18:01 UTC

I am afraid you are treading on dangerous territory of getting political. Whether intentional or not, the article seems to be an endorsement of the photographer's perspective. Some folks may agree with it and others may not.

A photography review site, if covering this, should look at the technology with the rest being neutral. A headline such as "Photographer uses 'antique' style photos to make his point", showing a less politically-charged picture as the lead image would be appropriate. Saying that Mr. Balkowitsch wishes to illustrate his view of issues affecting the Dakota Indian Tribe would be okay, because it is true and not taking a position.

We have become too polarized and everyone seems to be jumping in on it. In a wold of complaints about "leftist Hollywood", "greedy corporations", "New York values", "big pharma", etc, can we please have a site that just sticks to its subject matter without preaching anything at us? DPR should be for everyone who likes photography!

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 05:33 UTC as 22nd comment | 15 replies

I agree generally with Mr. Omvik's take on this, but would add the following. We are all too hung up on the specifics of processing. HDR is one of many techniques that can make a picture either or less true to "real life". Built-in "digital range optimizer" can do some of the same, as can a tweak of the gamma and contrast.

I once took a picture of a two friends standing next to car in fairly bright twilight that looked more like day than night. Iin aperture-priority, the friends and the car were properly exposed and the sky became quite bright. It looked like bright day. Next, I tried with a diffused flash. The subjects were properly exposed but the background were dark; it looked like a scene under a streetlight at night. Neither one would be good journalism.

I will go out further on a limb and suggest that if the processing created a picture that looked like the scene would in person, the newspaper probably just created a distraction by mentioning how it was processed.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2012 at 20:28 UTC as 37th comment
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6