Michael Foran

Joined on Sep 10, 2009

Comments

Total: 66, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

col4bin: Adobe is in my rear view mirror. After many years of using their products, I dumped them for non-subscription based software.

Do you actually like the software better, or is the subscription model the only motivating factor?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 17:25 UTC
In reply to:

col4bin: Adobe is in my rear view mirror. After many years of using their products, I dumped them for non-subscription based software.

So what are you using now?

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:21 UTC
In reply to:

tom1234567: Well I'm waiting for Affinity for windows beta version to come out and then
its goodbye Adobe.
I will persevere until I'm competent with it.
I think Adobe has treated there customers very badly with this subscription
just not worth it.
It's the usual corporate GREED and profit margins that's all they care about
You the customer are just a bank number that pays and pays and pays.
but every dog gets its day ( I hope )

Tom G

How little is everyone making in their work that the cost of a Photoshop subscription is even an issue? If you place a value on your time it probably costs more for you to complain about it in the DP forums. It's the price of doing business.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:20 UTC
In reply to:

Tim McClanahan: "Face Aware Liquify" - I think that's what happened to Ramsay Bolton, isn't it?

It certainly happened to the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark!

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

Bali_Mirage: Ok......I've just updated to Photoshop CC 2015.5. Can I now delete/uninstall Photoshop CC 2015 along with Adobe Photoshop CC 2014?

Test to make sure everything works and is set up properly first.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:15 UTC
In reply to:

Gio 645: Good job Adobe! I had to reinstall On1 and Extensis Font Manager. Particleshop plugin works but Quick Launch panel doesn't. Also the Beauty Retouch 3 which is my main retouching tool, seems to be incompatible with this update!
I shouldn't have pressed the update button!

Or more accurately, you should have opened the Advanced Options and chosen not to remove the older versions. If you rely on the software for professional use, this should be the option you always choose. At a minimum, you are going to need to re-setup plug-ins and preferences not synced to the cloud. At the worst, third-party plugins will not work. For best practices, you should always allow time to setup and test without interrupting your workflow.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:14 UTC
On article Sony warns against use of unauthorized third-party apps (183 comments in total)

There is no way in hell I would ever risk my camera to an unauthorized app. It's just not worth the risk. However, Sony should open up the API so third party developers have a way to develop legal apps, and give authors a way to release them.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2016 at 20:52 UTC as 41st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: Sony Play Apps are garbage. They're half-baked, self-contain apps that don't integrate with the main interface of the camera. Do these people at Sony even use cameras or do they just like going over spec sheets all day?

I agree that the existing Play apps are generally half-baked. However, I don't have any issue with them being self-contained. They should be specialized for specific situations. I don't think they should alter the overall camera functionality, which I think would turn into a nightmare of bricked cameras and very expensive tech support. However, I would be happy if Sony spent as much money developing the Play apps (or opening up the API) as they did promoting them. Then we wouldn't have such an anemic selection of novelty toys, and might get some full featured add-ons that could really be useful.

*edit: spelling

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 13:02 UTC
In reply to:

Petrogel: If it wasn't for this stupid sony's playstore, i would have bought both a6000 and a7ii

The poorly implemented Play Memories store is not a good reason to avoid Sony cameras. It's shortcomings are just an annoying footnote on otherwise excellent products. That's like saying you won't buy a car because you don't like the radio. These are strong cameras and, if Sony had never created a Play app feature, would still be excellent in their own right. It's also illogical to think that the Play apps only add functionality the camera should already have. That's utter nonsense. The apps should be, and generally are, specialized functions that handle specific situations. I have no problem with this. I do think that Sony is wasting the potential here with their own half baked apps and no third party support, but none of this detracts from the fact that these are well designed cameras first and foremost.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 12:53 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Foran: Sony continues to screw up with the Play Apps. Why not open the API to third party developers? Why do we have to jailbreak our cameras to sneak these apps in? Even if Sony made some astounding Play Apps, which they DON'T, there is always someone out there who will need something or invent something Sony doesn't provide. I like my A7ii, and all the Sony cameras I have had over the years, but their Play Apps have continued to be a sore spot. The wasted potential here is very frustrating.

@Impulses, I think if Sony is really scared of developers screwing up the camera with a buggy Play app, they should have a screening process like Apple uses for their iOS platform. They could even charge developers for the procedure, and make themselves the only authorized store so they can take their cut.

I think they are more scared that expanded camera functionality will compete with newer models and give people less incentive to upgrade.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 12:30 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Foran: Sony continues to screw up with the Play Apps. Why not open the API to third party developers? Why do we have to jailbreak our cameras to sneak these apps in? Even if Sony made some astounding Play Apps, which they DON'T, there is always someone out there who will need something or invent something Sony doesn't provide. I like my A7ii, and all the Sony cameras I have had over the years, but their Play Apps have continued to be a sore spot. The wasted potential here is very frustrating.

@Mike FL, as others have said, the API you pointed to is not the Play Memories API. It is an API so one can tap into the Play Memories Remote Control app that already exists. So a developer could write a phone app that connects to the camera via that app. However, what I am talking about is the actual Play Memories app layer itself. Developers should be able to code an app that will install directly on the camera and access all the camera functions. I can imagine some pretty excellent new apps. And if the dev kit were easy enough to use, some photographers could even customize workflows. So I stand by my original statement. Wasted potential.

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2016 at 12:22 UTC

Sony continues to screw up with the Play Apps. Why not open the API to third party developers? Why do we have to jailbreak our cameras to sneak these apps in? Even if Sony made some astounding Play Apps, which they DON'T, there is always someone out there who will need something or invent something Sony doesn't provide. I like my A7ii, and all the Sony cameras I have had over the years, but their Play Apps have continued to be a sore spot. The wasted potential here is very frustrating.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 19:34 UTC as 7th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

Michael Foran: I can see why this technology would go over a lot of photographer's heads- particularly traditionalists. But for a person, like myself, that also does a lot of compositing and effects for video, I can see a lot potential here. By creating a depth map with the shot, it almost negates the need to shoot on green screen as you can pull your mattes from the depth map. And with plotted 3D space it's much easier insert your effects and CG elements because your camera and lens are already solved. It's really more for post-production, not the DPReview crowd, although cinematographers would need to learn it if it were integrated into production. This is a much more practical use for this technology than the consumer market.

@HowaboutRAW, I'm not sure what you mean. The video clearly shows them pulling mattes from the light field data. They don't get into any detail about the process, but they replace the background on a few shots without the need of a green screen. I presume this is because they can create a depth map and then crush it to create a clean matte. Can you explain what your comment?

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2016 at 17:24 UTC

I can see why this technology would go over a lot of photographer's heads- particularly traditionalists. But for a person, like myself, that also does a lot of compositing and effects for video, I can see a lot potential here. By creating a depth map with the shot, it almost negates the need to shoot on green screen as you can pull your mattes from the depth map. And with plotted 3D space it's much easier insert your effects and CG elements because your camera and lens are already solved. It's really more for post-production, not the DPReview crowd, although cinematographers would need to learn it if it were integrated into production. This is a much more practical use for this technology than the consumer market.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2016 at 16:07 UTC as 16th comment | 5 replies

I wish Adobe would quit with these bell-and-whistle features and improve functions of the program that actually matter to photographers. How about better skin tone control? or the ability to control noise in zones of brightness? i actually do like the program but their focus on gimmicks over substance is a constant irritation.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2016 at 13:32 UTC as 15th comment

Wasn't this exactly the plan they publicly set forth a couple years ago? I don't have a link to the actual article but I recall them making a statement that the low and mid range markets were saturated and they were going to focus on higher end models. So this is exactly what they predicted would happen, they shifted their strategy accordingly, and had a big increase in profit because of it. And yet this headline seems to imply they failed somehow.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2016 at 17:57 UTC as 26th comment | 2 replies

Any chance us a7ii users will see this firmware update too?

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2015 at 15:08 UTC as 21st comment
On article Sony Alpha 7R II Review (2161 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael Foran: When is DPReview going to stop dancing around it and post a proper review?

Haha, well it's more than the numbers. I'd like to know where you definitively settle on some of the outstanding issues. Until you put a bow on it I consider everything to be evolving. Don't get me wrong, I am enjoying the informative coverage.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2015 at 18:11 UTC
On article Sony Alpha 7R II Review (2161 comments in total)

When is DPReview going to stop dancing around it and post a proper review?

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2015 at 13:56 UTC as 391st comment | 9 replies
On article What difference does it make? Sony uncompressed Raw (621 comments in total)
In reply to:

40daystogo: Just so that Sony is made clear on how users feel:

-- I want a third option of: lossless, compressed RAW.

I would have preferred Sony relay this and done it properly, rather than giving us some half-hearted attempt to pacify upset users.

The problem is, now that Sony gives us a half-hearted fix, they might delay the lossless, compressed RAW for a long time, thinking that people are satisfied. We're not.

Sony, given the choice of compressed, lossless RAW, versus uncompressed, mega-big files - what sort of crazy person would want to massively large uncompressed files?

I doubt we will see this in this round of cameras. For one, using a lossless compression algorithm, like ZIP, LZW or RAR, would most likely require licensing fees to patent holders. As these fees are not worked into the business plan I think it's unlikely they will authorize them for a firmware update. Secondly, compressing this way was not designed into the camera and would likely compromise other features of the camera with the CPU overhead. My prediction is that you are going to have to make a choice between file size or uncompressed files until the next generation of these cameras arrives.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2015 at 04:33 UTC
Total: 66, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »