piratejabez

Joined on Aug 2, 2010

Comments

Total: 368, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I can't really imagine this saving me time...

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 01:06 UTC as 53rd comment | 1 reply
On article Google Pixel XL camera review (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

Poweruser: Who would give away ALL their mobile acvtivity to a company like Google??? People wake up!

Indeed, it is a bit of a Hobson's choice.

FWIW—and this is just hearsay—my friends in the tech industry (who have worked for these companies) tend to trust Google more than Apple with their data.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 16:53 UTC

Me: "Kitty!"

Link | Posted on Dec 18, 2016 at 23:29 UTC as 19th comment
In reply to:

Gesture: Epson had a similar backlight illuminator (Hybrid Collector Backlight) on the PC850Z-a pretty good camera.

I do still wish camera makers would allow for larger and more powerful batteries, but it's nice to not have to build in a flippin' skylight to help out :)

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

Gesture: Epson had a similar backlight illuminator (Hybrid Collector Backlight) on the PC850Z-a pretty good camera.

As did many a Sony Mavica.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 16:50 UTC
In reply to:

SaltLakeGuy: I'll assume this program is NOT a RAW processor such as being able to say open up a RAF file from the new Fuji X-T2 camera which uses the XTrans sensor (not Bayer)? If it did that would be amazing. I'm guessing it's strictly for processing Jpegs however. If I'm wrong please let me know, I'd get it in a heartbeat.

I believe the Mac version relies on the Apple RAW engine. Now sure about Windows.

Link | Posted on Dec 9, 2016 at 22:38 UTC
On article Venus Laowa 12mm F2.8 Zero-D sample gallery (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

piratejabez: Interesting gallery. Where were these shot?

Thanks!

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2016 at 22:50 UTC
On article Venus Laowa 12mm F2.8 Zero-D sample gallery (125 comments in total)

Interesting gallery. Where were these shot?

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2016 at 17:11 UTC as 21st comment | 4 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX10/LX15 Review (393 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jennyhappy2: 1" compact pocket camera F1.4 for $699.

End of story.

Looking at the studio scene comparison tool, the LX100 appears to have about a 1-stop noise advantage at high ISOs (with much better color and slightly less vignetting), even when viewed at comparable sizes.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2016 at 18:48 UTC
In reply to:

piratejabez: How does the D500 not qualify for this category? (My best guess is, because it was included in another roundup.) But it seems I'm not the first person to take issue with the fairly arbitrary "semi-pro" category...

@HowaboutRAW, I think that's because they go off original MSRP... that it squeaked in to this category of course gave it the bargain status it needed to cement the top recommendation :) I'd have a hard time choosing between the two (D750 and D500).

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

Delos: I've been trying this out on some really old photos that are, more or less, permanently stuck inside a photo album from the early 1970's. I'm having a problem with 1) glare, if the image is on glossy paper, 2) stippling, if the photo is one of those that has had its surface roughened mechanically (as was the custom in the 70's. The image was printed on glossy paper and then ran through a pressure process that produced tiny indentations in the surface, 3) combo of glare and stippling on some images. These problems may be due to my technique, so I'm going to try a few different things to correct the problems. Not sure if anything will work, though, since the app takes over operation of the camera after that initial shot is taken. Color correction of these old, faded, magenta tinted photos is another matter entirely. (BTW: the photos I'm working with cannot be easily removed from the photo album due to adhesive holding them in place. These were the days before "Post-It Note" glue.)

Have you considered investing in an old flatbed scanner?

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 23:31 UTC
In reply to:

piratejabez: How does the D500 not qualify for this category? (My best guess is, because it was included in another roundup.) But it seems I'm not the first person to take issue with the fairly arbitrary "semi-pro" category...

OK, so I'm an idiot... now I see that the category is $2000 and above :) Wish there was a way to delete my original comment...

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 21:29 UTC

How does the D500 not qualify for this category? (My best guess is, because it was included in another roundup.) But it seems I'm not the first person to take issue with the fairly arbitrary "semi-pro" category...

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 17:43 UTC as 76th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Carlitos Breton: Apart from this being an obvious great lens, what a great gallery! beautifully done, bravo!

I'll always defend sample shooters for their right/duty to showcase a breadth of technical and contextual examples (above commenters' expectations or demands for beautiful ones), but I agree—these are lovely!

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 19:45 UTC
In reply to:

maljo@inreach.com: Pretty impressive what a water jet can do. Cut through glass?
What's our shower pressure? Like 30,000 PSI maybe?

I think you want https://www.dpreview.com/news/3477882246/slice-and-dice-watch-as-a-60-000-psi-water-jet-slices-a-slr-in-half

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2016 at 00:20 UTC
On article Tiny marvel: Panasonic LX10 sample photos (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: Why would this horrible dog photo be on the front page of this article???

I don't imagine this camera is very ISO-invariant. (Good technique for a camera with a larger and more capable sensor, however)

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2016 at 19:51 UTC
On article Canon is selling a gray version of the Rebel T6 (146 comments in total)
In reply to:

piratejabez: My goodness... it looks so much like the original 300D, from back in 2003! ...Time for a design update?

captura, absolutely. I used one and pretty much hated it (just.so.slow.), but I'm still looking forward to the 300D tbt :)

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2016 at 16:51 UTC
On article Canon is selling a gray version of the Rebel T6 (146 comments in total)

My goodness... it looks so much like the original 300D, from back in 2003! ...Time for a design update?

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 21:58 UTC as 33rd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

sankos: A good, educational article.

Slightly OT: why "Raw files, not "raw files"? Shooting and post-processing raw files is nothing extraordinary nowadays, so the spelling should reflect that, I think.

@falconeyes— You would capitalize the name of a proprietary file format (most of which are acronyms, like JPEG or NEF), or the software it's used by (like Word, a Microsoft trademark), but I don't think "Raw" falls into that category. "Raw" is simply not a proper noun; no one owns it. To me, it's more like "bitmap" or "vector", which are less frequently used as nouns to represent the file type. That doesn't mean most people don't capitalize it for the reason you stated :) I just don't think it's necessarily more accurate. (I think any capitalized use is technically ungrammatical, but I like DPReview's methodology, and all these things we're talking about is how our language evolves, often in illogical ways.)

So I guess what I'm saying is, everyone is both wrong and kinda right at the same time :)

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

sankos: A good, educational article.

Slightly OT: why "Raw files, not "raw files"? Shooting and post-processing raw files is nothing extraordinary nowadays, so the spelling should reflect that, I think.

Makes sense, thanks! Ah, English...

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 19:13 UTC
Total: 368, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »