iAPX

iAPX

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.

Comments

Total: 665, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

It's me or they are just repeating themselves in different locations?

There was no idea, no direction, even the generic music is boring, is it me?!?

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 01:04 UTC as 39th comment | 10 replies

They have a great "focus" :)

Maybe at some time, it would be interesting to apply it on photography product, instead of PR statements!

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 00:54 UTC as 36th comment

The "troll" might not be where you expect it...

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 00:53 UTC as 44th comment

Resolution: zero Megapixel :)

They are fun!

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 12:26 UTC as 35th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

iAPX: I like all these AI technologies, and if we push them further, we will need one colored pixel to create awesome photography of anything, in any size, making aps-c or ff dslr, mirrorless cameras, even medium-format obsoletes!

They may even decide to change framing, remove or add elements, it's so exciting!

Why I am taking one hour (or more) to shoot a strong portrait, when the AI could make it for me? ;)

@Bing Chow I like your photos, and reading your comments, I am sure you ar the perfect place to start AI instead of craftmanship ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 17:19 UTC

I like all these AI technologies, and if we push them further, we will need one colored pixel to create awesome photography of anything, in any size, making aps-c or ff dslr, mirrorless cameras, even medium-format obsoletes!

They may even decide to change framing, remove or add elements, it's so exciting!

Why I am taking one hour (or more) to shoot a strong portrait, when the AI could make it for me? ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 16:47 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies

Magnifique!

Thumbnails is now the reference picture to evaluate dslr quality level.
Why don't we juste use 320x200 digital cameras, if it's enough?!? loooollllll

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 20:45 UTC as 57th comment

So Nikon seems to understand, in 2017, that there are devices, known as "smartphones" that could take pictures, and are used by more and more people each and every day doing so?

I understand that it's hard when reality collide your marketing dreams, but I could not understand where they are heading for.

Or put it the other way, they seems to reproduce a pattern described in "The innovator's dilemma", heading to the grave while repeating "everything's ok" as a guy falling from a skyscraper could repeat to itself until...

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 20:37 UTC as 100th comment

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 43rd comment | 3 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 81st 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 42nd comment | 1 reply
On article Hello Lightroom CC: Embracing the future (510 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 (510 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 (510 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 (510 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 (510 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 (510 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 92nd comment | 1 reply
On article RIP Lightroom 6: Death by subscription model (1633 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
Total: 665, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »