DaveE1

Joined on Sep 18, 2008

Comments

Total: 599, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

HRPuffnstuff: I have an Instax photo printer and the looks on faces of the younger generations when I hand them an instant pic then watching them shake it to make it develop faster is priceless.

Even Polaroid says to never shake the prints from modern Polaroid cameras, it may damage them. They had to issue that warning years ago, after some pop song included the words "Shake it like a Polaroid picture".

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2021 at 12:48 UTC
In reply to:

M Lammerse: Now with the covid pandemic it's hard to imagine but there are photographers who sell (sold) hundreds of Polaroid prints during a festival day for 5 Euros each

He had to cut the price because everyone looks the same now with their masks? ;-)

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2021 at 12:42 UTC
In reply to:

JustSomeone: Is anyone really tired of all this AI stuff lately?
AI this AI that, AI can edit your photos, AI can sort your photos, AI everything...

(I know AI has been with us for decades but still, the AI overload lately is very tiring IMO)

I asked a marketing representative what he understood by AI after his presentation to our company on his latest AI powered product. He said it is "Augmented Intelligence that is replacing human decision making"

There you have it. Top notch nonsense. I think he is confusing Augmented Reality and Artificial Intelligence. But who could blame him with all the buzzwords he has to remember. I won't even get into what he meant by replacing human decision making.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2021 at 12:37 UTC
In reply to:

capeminiol: So 52mm-equivalent is now considered telephoto?

It is the telephoto lens on the phone. So what?! Nothing to get into a knot about.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2019 at 00:36 UTC
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: No competition. Samsung Note 10+ is clearly better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKwGlv3I1x8

So, with Apple continuing to sink, is it time to ban Samsung now? ;-)

Sergey. You link to a channel called Android Central to prove that other phones are better than iPhones. How about this instead? https://youtu.be/ZA3MV2V--TU

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2019 at 00:31 UTC
In reply to:

Piotr W: Version 22 will have ten lenses ? There is no limit for idiocy. Apple products are the most overpriced products.

If ten lenses makes for a better image from computational photography, then good. I can't wait.

If you hate Apple for this, you will be apoplectic with the Android phones with more than three lenses!!

And as for the Light 16... I fear you may not survive... https://light.co/camera

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2019 at 00:17 UTC
In reply to:

Barry Pearson: I'm floating this to see what people here think.
It is obvious that lots of people hate the subscription model, and wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole!
Doesn't that give competitors an extra option they can benefit from?
For many people, Adobe simply isn't part of the available range of competing products, so the marketplace for the competition is increased.
Won't that increase the range of products available, over time? Won't we all benefit in the long term, with extra products for those who can't tolerate the subscription model, and therefore extra pressure on Adobe to keep enhancing their subscription-based products?
(I wonder what the companies competing with Adobe think about Adobe's subscription model? Are they thinking "thank you Adobe"?)

Barry. That makes no sense. It's like saying anyone making negative comments about Canon joined for that reason because they joined DPReview after 1937.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2018 at 12:49 UTC
In reply to:

Barry Pearson: I'm floating this to see what people here think.
It is obvious that lots of people hate the subscription model, and wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole!
Doesn't that give competitors an extra option they can benefit from?
For many people, Adobe simply isn't part of the available range of competing products, so the marketplace for the competition is increased.
Won't that increase the range of products available, over time? Won't we all benefit in the long term, with extra products for those who can't tolerate the subscription model, and therefore extra pressure on Adobe to keep enhancing their subscription-based products?
(I wonder what the companies competing with Adobe think about Adobe's subscription model? Are they thinking "thank you Adobe"?)

You come across as very stuck in your ways Barry. There are better ways of doing things these days, so it isn't that impressive to claim to use one product for a LONG time, even with the trickle of updates as you put it. Technology evolves and the most creative pros move with it. I used Lightroom before someone showed me better alternatives. It was once revolutionary for photographers, but was left behind since.
Vik2012 and others brought up the excellent point about the need for CC subscriptions to fully edit CC files later. That alone should have people looking elsewhere. And it would be silly to say that the products Andre mentioned above aren't better than the Adobe cocktail offering.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2018 at 12:06 UTC
In reply to:

Barry Pearson: I'm floating this to see what people here think.
It is obvious that lots of people hate the subscription model, and wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole!
Doesn't that give competitors an extra option they can benefit from?
For many people, Adobe simply isn't part of the available range of competing products, so the marketplace for the competition is increased.
Won't that increase the range of products available, over time? Won't we all benefit in the long term, with extra products for those who can't tolerate the subscription model, and therefore extra pressure on Adobe to keep enhancing their subscription-based products?
(I wonder what the companies competing with Adobe think about Adobe's subscription model? Are they thinking "thank you Adobe"?)

Vik2012. I think Barry is using Lightroom, so what I understand from his replies, he doesn't quite get the importance of keeping PSD source files intact and fully editable in 100% compatible software. I also keep the original source files and flatten down or export only as needed. You MUST keep the source files if you are working on client files. There is no way I would want to go back and do all the editing again in a new application. I am really put off by the fact that you can't get Adobe software for a one off price any longer. That's why I have the last version of the Creative Suite on disc and now use Affinity Photo that someone suggested here. No way am I paying a monthly fee just to have a way to occasionally edit Adobe files I once created in Adobe Photoshop CC.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2018 at 18:40 UTC

That's the fun with studies. This one shows that shooting and sharing one a day is good.

The previous studies showed that sharing your photos regularly leads to an addiction to "likes" and feelings of rejection from negative comments.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 23:19 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

saiko: Don't make kids get hooked to Adobe Ransomware Package at a young age - even if they give it out for 'free'.

BaldCol and Gmon750 are playing word games for the Adobe marketing team it appears.

Yes, ADOBE DOES LOCK YOU OUT, as the software required to access and continue your edits STOPS WORKING on cancellation of your subscription.

The only options you have is to flatten down your files and lose your live layers/filters/edits prior to cancellation, or to use an alternative like Affinity that attempts to piece together as much of your Adobe file as it can with layers.

Be warned, if you are in doubt about paying future Adobe subscription prices and increases and you want to revisit old files to tweak saved edits in the source, stay away from Adobe CC.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2018 at 21:01 UTC
In reply to:

otto k: Nope, not even close to actual POV, just imagine footage from normal talking to a female your height. What is the frame showing?

@Otto. I think in that particular case the user may see... a two year suspended sentence, if they don't have a very good excuse, a good defense attorney and a lenient judge.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2018 at 21:56 UTC

Hopefully, the previous "Meltdown" and "Spectre " type vulnerabilities are dealt with the new processors without the need for a slowdown fix.

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2018 at 21:47 UTC as 52nd comment
In reply to:

Vik2012: Lots of DPReview visitor crystal-balls going into the trash after reading this article. DSLR's were predicted to be extinct how many years ago now... 5?, 10? :D

@mgrum. I have also been reading predictions here on the complete demise of DSLR since 2008. If you are a regular forum or comment reader, you would have read them too, even if you don't/won't remember them.

Vik is correct. You might want to follow your own link, as you clearly don't know what a reference to a straw man means. LOL

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2018 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

Team Yeti: Obviously the Creative Cloud is helping them rake in the cash. And good for Adobe and their shareholders -- they are running a business, after all. That's capitalism at work.

You know what else is capitalism at work? Me voting with my wallet not to pay for their subscription-based products. Bring back standalone software please.

NetMage. Gerard above is correct in what he states, so would appear to understand how subscription works much better than you do.

You are deliberately too selective in your choice of words when defending Adobe. The fact remains that you do indeed lose access to editing features when you are locked out of subscription products post subscription. As others have pointed out, that's one of the hooks.

Adobe's own PS file format does not edit seamlessly in other software, so you can ditch your "likely" statement, as it won't cover you if you find yourself having to do that. You will need to merge down some effects and layers and redo them if you want the same control. If you no longer have access to PS, that's a problem.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2018 at 23:34 UTC

My condolences to the family and friends of those who lost their lives in the accident.

I understand that the helicopter should have been able to stay upright on the water using inflated floats. Surely those helicopters should be grounded until their safety mechanisms are tested and verified as working as designed.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 18:23 UTC as 29th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

stevo23: Sorry to all those still on Adobe - sorry that we're jumping ship and cause your costs to go up. Hopefully, Adobe gets the message soon. This company is off the rails and someone needs to send a clear message.

Miksto. Inflation?? What on earth are you talking about? If the cliched below inflation argument is your best, then you are stuck to justify this subscription price increase.

Also, any well run, serious photo/video studio or professional will try to keep their costs down. Throwing money at Adobe if they can use a better alternative for less is madness. And there are better alternatives, unlike in the past.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 18:04 UTC
In reply to:

chipmaster: Why is any review or article that is positive to smartphone photography viewed with so much disdain and polarized view from the camera heads, be them mirrorless, DSLR or even medium or film heads. Could you all be just that insecure, LOL.

I shoot with a DSLR, rather high end, matter of the fact, and many times only take a smartphone, I'm comfortable that too. I think all you guys need to lighten up about your insecurity :D

Jeez! dr. noise is one confused little troll.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2018 at 12:02 UTC
In reply to:

DrGerm: The problem with all these "shooting XYZ with only a smartphone" article is this: we only ever get to see the shots that the author got. We never get to see the ones he/she could've gotten with a serious camera, but just didn't with the phone.

Exactly the same with any camera. Have you ever seen a shot someone didn't get?

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2018 at 11:56 UTC
In reply to:

MichelBB: I do not understand how people are so excited about the pics quality. To me the quality is horrible. Just look at shadow parts in the pic "Australian Camp, Pokhara, Nepal." or "Bhoudanath Stupa, Kathmandu". They or not only noisy, they are pixelated !!! I would be ashamed to show that to my family. Seriously. If camera size is so important you can take an a6000 (as an example) with a small fixed lens that fits pants pockets easily. Why taking photos with the smartphone?

You must come from one uptight family if you would be ashamed to show them those pictures.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 19:32 UTC
Total: 599, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »