fyngyrz

Lives in United States Glasgow, AK, United States
Has a website at http://fyngyrz.com/
Joined on Jun 12, 2007
About me:

Canon EOS 6D mk I, various L and non-L lenses, tripods, Astrotrac, ball and azimuth/elevation heads, polarizers and IR pass filters. I shoot available light.

Comments

Total: 188, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

fyngyrz: I stopped upgrading my copy of Photoshop when Adobe went to their continuous vampire subscription mode. In fact, I turned around, fired up the c++ compiler, and wrote my own image processing system: iToolBox.

Does iToolBox have all of Photoshop's features? No. Does it have all the features I need? Yes. It also has quite a few features other image processors don't offer - because I wanted those too.

So these days, when I need a feature, I just add it.

And I made it available, for free, to anyone who is interested. No ads; no "in-app purchases"; no subscriptions; no collecting people's information to sell; no cost; no need to be online to make it work, ever.

Just free. Extensive documentation, runs on Windows and OSX, under continuous and enthusiastic development.

Cord successfully cut. :)

Zeee, I wasn't saying you wouldn't have your image files. I was saying you wouldn't have the software itself.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2020 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

fyngyrz: I stopped upgrading my copy of Photoshop when Adobe went to their continuous vampire subscription mode. In fact, I turned around, fired up the c++ compiler, and wrote my own image processing system: iToolBox.

Does iToolBox have all of Photoshop's features? No. Does it have all the features I need? Yes. It also has quite a few features other image processors don't offer - because I wanted those too.

So these days, when I need a feature, I just add it.

And I made it available, for free, to anyone who is interested. No ads; no "in-app purchases"; no subscriptions; no collecting people's information to sell; no cost; no need to be online to make it work, ever.

Just free. Extensive documentation, runs on Windows and OSX, under continuous and enthusiastic development.

Cord successfully cut. :)

> I get LR and PS for free.

A: No, you don't, unless you pirated them. You're paying for them directly or indirectly, but you ARE paying for them.

B: And if/when you stop paying, you won't have them any longer.

> Have you checked out pricing for a personal website out there

Sure. It's trivial and very inexpensive to run one's own webserver. The cost is electricity (not much, frankly) and a domain name. All you need is a Raspberry Pi, an Internet connection, and a wall wart. Nothing to it.

As with most things, if you pay someone to provide some ongoing service for you that you could have managed yourself, you'll pay a lot more than if you had done it yourself.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2020 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

fyngyrz: I stopped upgrading my copy of Photoshop when Adobe went to their continuous vampire subscription mode. In fact, I turned around, fired up the c++ compiler, and wrote my own image processing system: iToolBox.

Does iToolBox have all of Photoshop's features? No. Does it have all the features I need? Yes. It also has quite a few features other image processors don't offer - because I wanted those too.

So these days, when I need a feature, I just add it.

And I made it available, for free, to anyone who is interested. No ads; no "in-app purchases"; no subscriptions; no collecting people's information to sell; no cost; no need to be online to make it work, ever.

Just free. Extensive documentation, runs on Windows and OSX, under continuous and enthusiastic development.

Cord successfully cut. :)

Yeah... lots of those folks out there. Me, I'm perfectly okay with paying a reasonable amount for a stable product. I was happy to pay them (and I paid them a lot, both original purchase and upgrades), right up until they decided I had to *keep* paying them or the New Hotness would stop working. That was a bridge too far. No pun intended, but hey, they just happen. :)

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2020 at 15:01 UTC

I stopped upgrading my copy of Photoshop when Adobe went to their continuous vampire subscription mode. In fact, I turned around, fired up the c++ compiler, and wrote my own image processing system: iToolBox.

Does iToolBox have all of Photoshop's features? No. Does it have all the features I need? Yes. It also has quite a few features other image processors don't offer - because I wanted those too.

So these days, when I need a feature, I just add it.

And I made it available, for free, to anyone who is interested. No ads; no "in-app purchases"; no subscriptions; no collecting people's information to sell; no cost; no need to be online to make it work, ever.

Just free. Extensive documentation, runs on Windows and OSX, under continuous and enthusiastic development.

Cord successfully cut. :)

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2020 at 14:36 UTC as 39th comment | 11 replies

Human bodies are beautiful as long as they're doing things they freely choose to do in an informed manner. Pictures of same, under the same conditions, can be just as beautiful.

Facebook, however, straight-up offends me.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2019 at 17:45 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

dan_darkroom: Nürburgring has camera holes too in the fence at popular spots, much bigger though, about A4 size squares.

You *definitely* need a fast lens at Nürburgring.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2019 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

englishfil: Have none of you heard of virtual machines?
Software doesn't die it just goes virtual.
If your Aperture is stable under whatever version of MacOS you are running then just build a VM with that OS. Then shift your licensed Aperture to that VM and reconnect all your libraries (caveat: you may need to read the manual/help files!!). Now if you want to use Aperture just open up a VM a window, just like I do for the last standalone Adobe Creative Suite and an older version of PS (separate VMs). Plenty of info on interweb for creating free VMs or buy a commercial product such as Parallels. VMs really are the way to stop idiosyncratic marketing decisions screwing over your life.
Unfortunately there is currently no way of creating a physical 'virtual machine' that can replace Apple hardware; Hackintosh comes close, but has major limitations. Let us hope Apple's recent retrograde hardware growth figures will force some reality into their hardware designs.

VMWare can run a VM of another Mac OS. I have OS X 10.6.8 (server version) running in a VMWare VM, and other than there's no sound support (darn it), it works very well. OS X 10.6.8 is some kind of special case, license-wise - you can only VM the server version. Sigh.

Link | Posted on May 18, 2019 at 23:34 UTC
In reply to:

englishfil: Have none of you heard of virtual machines?
Software doesn't die it just goes virtual.
If your Aperture is stable under whatever version of MacOS you are running then just build a VM with that OS. Then shift your licensed Aperture to that VM and reconnect all your libraries (caveat: you may need to read the manual/help files!!). Now if you want to use Aperture just open up a VM a window, just like I do for the last standalone Adobe Creative Suite and an older version of PS (separate VMs). Plenty of info on interweb for creating free VMs or buy a commercial product such as Parallels. VMs really are the way to stop idiosyncratic marketing decisions screwing over your life.
Unfortunately there is currently no way of creating a physical 'virtual machine' that can replace Apple hardware; Hackintosh comes close, but has major limitations. Let us hope Apple's recent retrograde hardware growth figures will force some reality into their hardware designs.

> Unfortunately there is currently no way of creating a physical 'virtual machine' that can replace Apple hardware

Well, there's always EBay. Plenty of working Apple hardware with non-Aperture-broken OS capability on there. Relatively inexpensive, too, compared to new, and soon to be broken, Apple hardware.

Also, WRT VMs, there are pervasive rumors at this time that OS X will be moving to a non-Intel CPU basis; that's very likely to
kill off, or hugely cripple, the various VM systems.

Best to stay with older hardware for sure if that happens.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2019 at 15:49 UTC

Apple user confirms won't be upgrading past OS X Mojave.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2019 at 15:46 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

fyngyrz: Perhaps next time around they won't leave the performance essentially the same on (what was sold as) an "upgrade", the way they did with the 6D. They certainly could have had my measly little bit of cash if the "new" 6D actually performed better than the "old" 6D.

But since they didn't bother to actually improve the fundamental IQ, I just bought another 6D, used. Works fine, creates images of just as high quality as a "new" 6D, and Canon got nothing more from me. Am I alone in this? Somehow, I doubt it.

Arun, it matters in that since it wasn't any better, Canon didn't sell one to me. In the context of the article, this affects Canon's bottom line. This is on-topic, and to the point.

Of course I agree, upgrading for the sake up upgrading makes no sense - that's exactly what I was talking about. Canon didn't give me a reason to upgrade, so I didn't. If they don't give me one in the future, I still won't. Either they improve the performance, or they don't make the sale. Lowering sales = lowering profits: what this article is about.

Clear now?

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2019 at 14:50 UTC

Perhaps next time around they won't leave the performance essentially the same on (what was sold as) an "upgrade", the way they did with the 6D. They certainly could have had my measly little bit of cash if the "new" 6D actually performed better than the "old" 6D.

But since they didn't bother to actually improve the fundamental IQ, I just bought another 6D, used. Works fine, creates images of just as high quality as a "new" 6D, and Canon got nothing more from me. Am I alone in this? Somehow, I doubt it.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2019 at 18:51 UTC as 15th comment | 7 replies

Smugmug / Flickr is still going to savage the content of carefully curated groups by tossing out all images older than the most recent 1000 posted by its free (read, screwed) users.

Speaking as a moderator of a number of such groups, I'm really unhappy with this. The right move here, IMHO, would be to grandfather existing images in, and allow no more uploads past where one already is unless the upgrade to pro is made. Then at least they wouldn't be outright screwing all those users and the groups their images currently exist in.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2018 at 14:29 UTC as 6th comment
On article Canon EOS R review (3298 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fishchris: I'm still trying to figure out the benefits of "ANY" mirrorless camera over a mirrored one ?
Mirrorless cameras are a huge plus "for the manufacturers"... easier / cheaper to produce, and so a higher profit margin. But for the photographer, nearly worthless.

> I'm still trying to figure out the benefits of "ANY" mirrorless camera over a mirrored one ?

Oh, that's easy. It's considerably cheaper to build, and these designs will wear out your batteries 3x as fast as compared to a camera where you preferentially use (can use) the OVF, so you'll spend more there. Totally worth it.

Oh, wait, you probably meant benefits for _you_ ...ummm... no. A camera with **both** EVF and OVF is much better for the shooter. The OVF is much better in both sunlight and the night time (presuming you actually want to preserve your night vision.) The EVF has its occasional uses as well.

But it sure is great for the manufacturer!

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2018 at 22:09 UTC
On article Canon EOS R review (3298 comments in total)

The battery life issue alone is enough to get me to say "no." 370 hours vs. 1200 hours. That's aside from EVFs ruining one's night vision at night, and being washed out in sunlight.

But photography attracts all kinds of shooters. I'm sure there will be plenty of buyers.

Personally, I'm still holding out for a 6D mk3 upgrade; they could, theoretically speaking, get me to buy the same way they did the original 6D: better low light performance at a reasonable price. A mark they noticeably missed with the mk2.

Barring that, I'll probably stick with this 6D, or a replacement 6D mk1 from NOS or even EBay if NOS is not available should this camera go nipples north before an attractive upgrade comes out. AFAIAC, the 6Dmk1 remains "the sweet spot" for price/performance. It'll only get more so with used/NOS pricing.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2018 at 22:00 UTC as 441st comment | 6 replies

Wrote my own image editor for OSX. Adobe can't mess with me any more...

http://ourtimelines.com/itdoc/intro.html

...problem solved.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2018 at 20:51 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

barrym1966: to sum it up

low iso is good, high iso is bad mmk

If you are median or average stacking, high ISO can be quite useful. Or if you are looking for something in very low light. Or if you really need a high shutter speed. Or if your lens doesn't have much light-gathering capability (but that's sort of repeating myself.) Or... well, you get the idea. mmk? :)

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2018 at 20:36 UTC

TO the author:

Turning up the ISO and getting more noise from the camera's gain stages is like turning up your stereo and getting more hiss from the audio gain stages. Not hum from the power supply or external inductive pickup.

Please, if you're going to fling comparative metaphors around, make sure you have some idea what you're talking about first.

Also, certainly you can get more noise when there are amplifier stages that generate noise, and gain is applied to their output. Any remarks to the contrary are outright wrong.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2018 at 15:30 UTC as 121st comment | 7 replies

As a long-time flickr user, I am right there when it comes to pointing at the various great suggestions people have made, and flickr has ignored, over the years.

I can still find room for a little hope. But we will see. They can have my subscription money again if they can get the corpse to twitch a little.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2018 at 01:30 UTC as 101st comment | 4 replies
On article Report: Apple won't release the next Mac Pro until 2019 (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

NemanRa: according to metadata, the photographs were edited on Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows. that's interesting.
i use cs6 and i think that i'm the only one because it's "old". :)
regards

I use CS5, because it doesn't require a "subscription" (which really means a constant draining of money.)

Also, seeing as how Apple's now planning on breaking all the 32-bit apps, and that many 32-bit apps no longer have developers to "upgrade them to 64-bit", I believe I'll be staying with 10.12.6 and my 12/24 core, 64GB, 3 GHz "cheesegrater" machine. Fastest and latest? No. Works better than the latest and gives me more flexibility than the latest? You bet it does.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 17:58 UTC
On article Report: Apple won't release the next Mac Pro until 2019 (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

rockjano: Why on Earth they don't tell more about it??? At least the concept what they want to achieve??? And how??? It is a pro market with grown up people we can wait if it worth it.

Anyone how want a MacPro today no problem!!! Just build a Hackintosh... easier than you think it is... Build a PC and put MacOS on it... best of both world...

> Why on Earth they don't tell more about it???

> It is a pro market with grown up people we can wait if it worth it.

No. You don't understand. They don't _want_ you to wait. They want you to buy an "iMac Pro."

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 17:48 UTC
Total: 188, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »