Lives in Canada Montreal, Canada
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at http://pmvigier.com
Joined on Jan 29, 2012
About me:

Portraitist and Events photographer.


Total: 657, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I beg your pardon, M'dame, I might be dumb, but for me a kickstarter project is not a project, it didn't exists, it's a dream, it's prototype, it's virtual, it's no more than a fantasy, and some of them doesn't event deserve a kleenex.

Stop presenting kickstart "projects"' (masturbating) as a product.
So now, Brittany backup this "kickstarter project", and I am willing to see how it goes for it, and how she will apologize for what she wrote, and eventually be dismissed from DPREVIEW.

Yes, you have to assume, Brittany, and DPREVIEW too :)

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 23:57 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Indohydra: To make it clear....does this mean that you will not be allowed to put a camera w batteries into checked baggage? But if you wish to fly with a camera you would need to carry all your camera equipment and batteries with you on your person in carry on?

When is this rule likely to go in effect at airports?

Don't place any camera body or lens in your checked luggage.

They might be stolen or broken. Or even sent to another location. Randomness is fun when you photography, not when you carry you equipment ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 23:50 UTC

Too funny!

At some times they wanted to avoid battery in cabin. Now they don't want them in checked luggage, maybe it's more logical to face the threat to react quickly and efficiently instead of hiding it!

Still, batteries will be a problem, they are ubiquituous.

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 23:47 UTC as 19th comment
In reply to:

Gary Dean Mercer Clark: I hope that he wins his lawsuit.

I am sad for these exploited photographers, as he might not be the only one...

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 23:38 UTC

I am a pro coder since early 80's, paid for that, and a photographer since 90's, and I p*ss on agism.

Youth is not a value, it's a fact. Old it's not a value too, but experience is., and I had 20 years pro experience in coding in mid-30's and 20 years pro experience in photography now.

I am proud of what I have done in both domains, that includes bing one of the 3 fools starting a startup that were sold to eBay for a 9 digit value 4 years later, helping my client winning hair stylist/artist competition on photography, including NAHA, Contessa, etc.

I am in my 50's, I am not better than when I am in my 20's, I am different, I am proud of what I have done, and I know that I could do different things now, maybe much more insightful and deeper, really deeper. Agism is dumb!

PS: I resented it on my last employment, with french milenials,, and they are stupid!

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2017 at 23:36 UTC as 16th comment
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (469 comments in total)
In reply to:

Raist3d: I really hate to say this but this has to be one of the biggest spin articles I have read on dpreview. And Rishi my friend, you are much smarter than this.

It wasn't that long ago that Adobe promised that stand alone LR was not going away and look at where we are now. To not say that *YOUR* choices are going to be in the hands of Adobe of when they kill the "new LR classic," and spin everything as a rosy future where the choices Adobe will make for you are the better ones for each or most individuals strikes me quite frankly as a bit too arrogant.

Also saying point #2 as if somehow it was Adobe endorsed for any holdouts
"The standalone version of Lightroom is entering sunset. That doesn't mean you won't be able to keep using it for new cameras in the future: you'll just have to use DNG Converter to first convert your files to DNG format.*"

That would be as good of a spin of something like say (see below).

I already convert my D7500 RAW to DNS, to b able to handle them on an old LightRoom, but it disable any automatic sensor+lens correction, and it's not a long-term solution.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 12:44 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (469 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alan Williams ZA: 20GB? I suppose I could put a few pics in that space, but what do I do with the rest? Don't be ridiculous, that's not enough to justify the so-called benefits. Still much cheaper to buy 2 Corel licenses for two computers & I get 1TB cloud storage with Office 365!

I don't know what I will do with 1TB only, especially with limited available bandwidth (10 Mb/s upload, 2 weeks to upload 1TB pictures), limited monthly to 250GB, so it would take me 4 months to download it all without fes, or I have to upgrade my contract (another hidden cost), and I am *NOT* in a emergent country where it's really worse!

My libraries is nearly a 2TB at this point, and I radically delete any crappy picture (did too much!)

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 12:19 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (469 comments in total)
In reply to:

raztec: And what if they decide to change the rates to $19.99/mo in a year's time? You have absolutely no say. Adobe cannot be trusted, ever.

Anyone who buys into the subscription model is exceptionally naive about how profit and greed drive this company.

@miksto I have a say when I use a standalone product, when I buy it, or not.

Nobody will charge me more, months or years after I bought it, if I want to continue using it, except maybe a malware. Subscription without any engagment from Adobe, on price, features, performances, is as dangerous as a malware.

And if thy lost your pictures, i could be also as risky.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 12:14 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (469 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bgpgraebner: Geez. I'm a broke-ass student who lives on approximately $500/month (in Brazil) and even I don't mind paying $10/month for adobe products. Don't you guys get paid for your work or anything? One would think that you can easily embed the cost of a $10/month software in their paid work.

@Carlos_S could not agree more, with proprietary data format that disable all of us to switch software in a snap, using the most convenient, powerful or economic one, thus each time we work with LightRoom, we increase our cost of migration (if we need it too) and thus the price Adobe could bill us each month.

Worse with "classic" in the name, and no promises from Adobe that thy will continue to support it the next decade or so (at least), it's probably a dead-end. I want to invest in my future, not in Adobe results.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 12:02 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (469 comments in total)
In reply to:

dialstatic: A question from a complete programming n00b: how can they make existing software perform faster? I mean I'm glad they did, but how is it possible? Did they remove old inefficiences?

As a coder since 70's it's relatively easy to answer, and incredibly hard to do: they find any point that is slow, or slower than expected, and they rewrite it using other algorithms, code them by hand on native x86 or ARM assembly language code, they parallelize it using as many core as available, also using SIMD instructions (AVX/AVX2/AVX512, or Neon) to process subpixels or pixel data in parallel in one thread (up to 32 fp16 operations in parallel on latest Intel CPU, on each cycle), they cache data in RAM, they cache intermediate results in RAM (to avoid costly recalculation), they try to use as much RAM as it is available to put layers, thumbnails, and results in it.

They might us OpenCL or CUDA to us the processing power of the GPU to accelerate embarassingly parallels tasks, such as RAW processing, and many filters (Adobe is good at that, CUDA (nVidia-only) was first used and they now use OpenCL (all recent GPU).

It's an incredibly hard task!

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 11:45 UTC
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (469 comments in total)

I don't want to downgrade my LightRoom unlimited licence to a monthly subscription, and thus for my D7500, I convert it's RAW to DNG, to process them on my old LightRoom, and will keep it that way until I find a great tool to manage my photo libraries.

I am researching an alternative to LightRoom with simple library management, tagging, etc. and great RAW processing ability, simple to use and efficient.

I am not into photo retouching tools at this point, and will consider a lightweight one such as pixelmator at some point, but in Portraiture, I am excited by imperfection that gives much more insight into someone's soul.

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2017 at 11:40 UTC as 77th comment | 1 reply
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1350 comments in total)
In reply to:

geekyrocketguy: From 2013:
"Adobe product manager Tom Hogarty again said that Adobe has 'no plans to make Lightroom subscription only at any point in the future ... we plan to make Lightroom available in its current form pretty much indefinitely.'"

Source: https://www.cnet.com/news/adobe-lightroom-will-continue-as-stand-alone-product/

Well then.

@RIchard Butler "for the foreseeable future" means that he didn't mean what he tell, so. He just have to justify it by telling he didn't know it.

And if didn't know what will happens, why is he allowed to talk about it first?
Why medias reprint it?

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 23:47 UTC
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1350 comments in total)

It's one of the rare proprietary software that I use.

I have nothing against proprietary software when my data (and metadata) is open to be exchanged with other software, transferred, etc.
Then, proprietary software is chosen and bought for their own merits, not by making me hostage, or being a monthly ransomware on my own pictures and metadata.

Now, Lightroom is clearly a ransomware on my own pictures and metadata, and I consider Adobe as a threat. And I will act accordingly.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 23:44 UTC as 400th comment | 1 reply

Effectively at 2.x MP they are pretty close.

But I won't bet anything on the APS-C output when printed on 40" x 40" paper, as I do regularly for portraits, due to lens resolution limitation (not a sensor limitation), compared to full frame on same size :)

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2017 at 07:58 UTC as 67th comment
On article The Nikon D850 could be the only DSLR you’ll ever need (1100 comments in total)

I am impressed, it's expensive but fulfill many needs, and as I am coming back to events photography, with a fast gear (D7500 and a 10-20mm on it) associated with a high-res one (D800E w/50mm), two D850 might have been just what I need, or even just one and a 15-30mm with so many pixels!

One drawback is the noise and the clearly destructive noise-cancelling algorithm used, as seen on the 3200ISO picture. The ugly noise in preceding articles wasn't due to bad image management by DPR team or Nikon's PR, they came directly from the camera. A problem for sport photographer, where each second spent processing or re-processing the picture is a lost opportunity.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2017 at 19:34 UTC as 58th comment

The funny thing is traveling "all over the world" and talking about pollution.

We all have good reasons to pollute, to use non-renewable resources, but the most hypocrites are those doing so in the name of ecology. He's one of this crowd.

I am proud to *NOT* traveling around the world to do photography or whatever else, using walking, bicycling or metro using renewable hydro-electricity: at some point with 7 billions people here, you have to limit your impact on the world, instead consuming as much as you can using whatever excuse will fit.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 20:47 UTC as 39th comment | 2 replies

I had the chance to do the portraits of a couple, the woman having a degenerative disease, it was real hard for me, a heartbreaker, I needed to put it in the resulting photos, but didn't want to give them a sad tone, but instead trying to work on light and expressions to make them timeless and classy.

It was edgy, to say the least, and I have to see these portraits on the funerals, months later. She was present through them.

This is the kind of project or contract that is real hard to do, were emotion is intense, it still is deep in me, she was also a friend (that's why they asked me for the portraits) and I think whatever I have done, this is the hardest photo contract I had, the most important for me.

I see portraiture as a mean to leave a trace, and since this contract, I take it much more seriously, because we don't know, it might be the last one for this person, and I want it to be perfect, insightful.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 11:38 UTC as 14th comment
On article Capturing the same sunset, 2 years apart (126 comments in total)

They are both interesting and as @vscd as stated, the oldest one would be awesome in black and white, being really graphical.

I won't comment on post-production, because I wasn't here, I don't know what was the raw material, but still as a Montrealer, find both of them interesting, and would have been proud to shoot them myself!

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2017 at 20:37 UTC as 32nd comment | 1 reply

28mm f/5,6?!?

I would have did for a 28mm f/11, at this price level, to have something really exclusive! ;)

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2017 at 13:54 UTC as 2nd comment

30 000$ for a vulnerability that affects US Forces in operations?

Are you kidding?

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 00:18 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies
Total: 657, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »