July 30, 2014, 10:03:39 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Skirball

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21
16
If you look around the Internet then you will find various comments and statements from Adobe that there are currently no plans to make LR a CC only product.

If you want to look at what Adobe's prices have done in the past with respect to price then that would be a good indicator of what they will do in the future.

Of course there is always free products to use on Linux such as Dark Table.

Yes, I know what they said about their plans.  And no offense to Adobe, but that doesn't amount mean anything whatsoever to me.  All companies big and small have plans, and many intend to act with their customers best interest in mind, but that doesn't mean they always do.  They're a business, and ultimately all businesses come down to the bottom line.  If they cared about me saving money they would continue to sell standalone product. 

I have no problem paying for software, such as Capture One.  It's this leasing of software that I'm hesitant about.

17
^^ Can't you export sidecar xml files to preserve your work?

Are all the localized edits stored in the .xml files?  I thought that was just the metadata, I thought the actual edits were in the LR catalog. 

So can another editor like Capture One read the .xml files and apply the same edits?  It seems like many of the localized edits would be proprietary to Lightroom.

18
Adobe is/was offering a cheaper CC version for photographers with PS & LR.  Also, just as an FYI from a longtime Adobe/Macromedia (RIP Freehand) user, those of us paying for our own licenses always skipped versions as Adobe rarely updated enough items between releases to justify the expense.  I'm still mad about the CC, but I've mellowed a bit as they are actually adding features and haven't raised the price (yet).

Yes, I've always skipped.   I went from early versions to a student copy of 6.0 to CS2 to CS6.  The newer additions are nice, but an experienced PS user can usually get the results he wants with the old tools.  Maybe not major additions like liquify and puppet warp, but the bulk majority anyway.

I've warmed up to CC a bit, and I'm real tempted by that $10 monthly option, even though I just bought CS6 less than a year ago.  But I'm having a really hard time convincing myself that it's a safe move to the cloud for Lightroom.  It's one thing to not have the ability to use a particular editing program, but Lightroom is more than an editor, it's my entire file management system.   All my edits, organizations, tags, albums, picks, etc.  Without access to Lightroom that’s all gone.  And Adobe is making no commitment what that access is going to cost you in the future.  It might not be as concerning for full-time pros, but us part-timers and hobbyists don’t have as much solidarity in the system.

So let’s say 5 years from now something happens in my life and I'm no longer actively into photography.  Family illness, work, family obligations, whatever.  Again, for the non full-time pro, it’s much more of a possibility.   Lets also say it's now $30 a month for access.  $360/year is a decent chunk of change for something I don't use.  It's no big deal to not have access to Photoshop.  If I want to 'chop again, I sign up.  But I no longer have access to my file system?  The edits I've made?  The catalog that I've spent the last 10 years or building will no longer be backwards compatible with CS4.  The only way I can access all the work I’ve done is to keep paying Adobe.  At that point I don't need new features, I'm fine with an old version, but I need something that can read my file system and my edits.  All I have to speak for my photography the last 5 years are anything I exported, and folders and folders full of unedited, unorganized RAW images.

19
It all depends on your specific needs.

If LR4 does what you need it to do, then stick with it.
However, if LR4 no longer does what you need and LR5 does, then upgrade to LR5

But don't upgrade just for the sake of upgrading. There are only a few things I can do on LR5 that I could not do on LR4.  If those few differences are not important to you, don't upgrade.  If the differences are important to you, upgrade.

I'm well aware of the differences between LR4 and LR5.  While I could take advantage of the additions I've been doing just fine using DxO and PS for perspective control and touchup.  It'd be nice to be able to do those within LR, but it's not the end of the world to jump around to different programs.  I just assumed I'd wait until LR6 comes out, adds a few more features, and I upgrade getting the perspective and spot touchup with it.

But that has little to do with my point.  If LR5 is the last standalone version then I'd gladly pay the $80 since it'll be the last version of LR I use and will probably be using it for some time.  I'm worried that if I wait until LR6 comes out, and it turns out to be cloud only, that the $80 upgrade for LR5 will no longer be an option.  I was just curious what people thought. 

20
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Auto ISO
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:34:06 PM »

Oh come on, if they didn't forsee that then their entire staff needs to be fired since none of them have the remotest clue about photography!

The whole staff probably shoots in Av and thinks they're as good as people who shoot manual.

21
I've been holding off upgrading from LR4 since LR6 should be just around the corner.  But now that it is there's more buzz about Adobe moving LR to part of their cloud service and not offer a standalone product.  I know that nobody knows if they will do that or not, but assuming they do, I'm wondering if I'll still be able to grab a LR5 for cheap ($80 upgrade) or will the LR5 price jump up?  I know nobody knows the answer to that either, but this is CR, where we endlessly discuss corporate decisions that we know nothing about.  What say ye?


22
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Auto ISO
« on: June 10, 2014, 12:04:30 PM »
I was just kidding!  I use auto ISO with EC.

Ok, thanks for clarifying ... believe it or not, there are really people around who try to tell you semi-auto (be it av,tv or auto iso) is just for people who are not able to shoot in full m, for any possible situation that is :-p

There's plenty of them on here.  Every time the topic comes up of exposure compensation for Auto ISO in manual there's usually at least one person who screams about it not really being full manual.  I've never heard anyone complain about it in real life, but on the internet what shooting mode you use and the purity in which you do it is of the utmost importance.

23
Software & Accessories / Re: Need help finding a backpack
« on: June 09, 2014, 01:34:47 PM »

@ Christian: Thanks for suggesting Kenti- it does look nice, but I think it will be too small for my camera gear and for my laptop.


Then go bigger.  I used to salivate over the f-Stop Loki and Tilopa.  Came close to pulling the trigger several times, but seeing as how I no longer rock climb or mountaineer, I just couldn't justify it.  Still...  those are some nice looking packs.

http://shop.fstopgear.com/us/products/mountain.html

24
Lighting / Re: What modifiers (sizes) are speedlites good for?
« on: June 04, 2014, 01:26:38 PM »
I don't doubt studio lights are great, and I'm sure I'd have a set if I actually had a dedicated studio area instead of my livingroom. 
The wife factor is a pain and my monolights live under the guest bed most of the time but are easy to set up and take down.  For some reason my wife doesn't think our living room looks good with studio lights (or weight lifting gear).  Go figure!

Lol.  Mine is about the same.  But my bike lives in our bedroom and my studio frequently take over the living room for the entire weekend, and she's good with it.  So I can't complain.

25
Lighting / Re: What modifiers (sizes) are speedlites good for?
« on: June 04, 2014, 12:28:15 PM »
-There are a few not so expensive monolights that are very tempting in the longer run, but that would still require 600-1000$ to setup so in my case that is going to be postponed for over a year although that would be the setup I'd really want.

Now I need to stop shopping and commit to shooting...

Good luck.
If you do the math, a set of Paul C Buff Alienbees or Einsteins, with wireless triggers, light stands, modifiers, Vagabond power pack, and carrying cases come out well ahead of buying 3, 6, 9, etc. 600RTs and all the trimmings, and they are more powerful, and can run on AC power.  You lose portability, of course, but that's the math I did and I love my Einsteins...

I've done the math, I can't afford AB or Einsteins and modifiers, let alone 3 to 9 600RT's.  However, I can afford some stands and modifiers for the flashes I already own and may be 1-2 more Yongnuos. I believe I'll be able to learn from the inexpensive setup and by the time I feel like I know where I'm going, I should have the money for quality monolights.
I think that sounds like a great plan!
Agree, that sounds like a gret plan.
I would even start with simple things like small shoot through umbrellas. Master your technique and need first before buying things. I wish I listened to people when I started few years ago.

I would have agreed with this awhile back, and it's the path I chose.  But with all the options of cheap softboxes out there it just doesn't make sense to get umbrellas anymore.  I shouldn't say that, umbrellas have their place, but there are several softboxes out there that are practically just umbrellas with a diffuser.  They're more efficient with light, allow far more control, and only cost a few more dollars.  I'd highly recommend them.

I don't doubt studio lights are great, and I'm sure I'd have a set if I actually had a dedicated studio area instead of my livingroom.  But aside from having to recharge batteries I've never had a problem using speedlights.  I'm usually at 1/16 power or less indoors.  The only time I go higher is for product photography when I'm at small apertures, or coloring a grey backdrop.  I've never had to use multiple lights in a modifier.  If anything I've bumped against the minimum power limit more, when balancing with ambient light at wide apertures.  Speedlights are plenty strong indoors.  True, I wish they were more powerful against the sun, but taking monos out into the sun has its own hurdles.

26
Lighting / Re: What modifiers (sizes) are speedlites good for?
« on: June 03, 2014, 04:08:29 PM »
-There are a few not so expensive monolights that are very tempting in the longer run, but that would still require 600-1000$ to setup so in my case that is going to be postponed for over a year although that would be the setup I'd really want.

Now I need to stop shopping and commit to shooting...

Good luck.
If you do the math, a set of Paul C Buff Alienbees or Einsteins, with wireless triggers, light stands, modifiers, Vagabond power pack, and carrying cases come out well ahead of buying 3, 6, 9, etc. 600RTs and all the trimmings, and they are more powerful, and can run on AC power.  You lose portability, of course, but that's the math I did and I love my Einsteins...

There are more options to off camera flash then 600RTs.

27
Lenses / Re: buy the 24-70 4 IS... or wait for the 2.8 IS?
« on: May 29, 2014, 01:20:34 PM »
It seems nobody read the part in the OP where he said "IS is a must".

It seems you haven't read what other people wrote. We were only suggesting that IS is not such a must at this focal length and wide aperture.

If we were talking about 70-200mm then I'm on the boat and IS is must, especially when you have shaky hands.

No, I did read what other people wrote; I'm just questioning it.  There seems to be a tendency online for people to argue their own agendas instead of simply answering a question.  The same argument can be seen in the 16-35 f/4 IS threads, where many are adamant that IS isn't needed on UWA.  Yet, there are people who want it.  So let them have it.   If someone asks for a lens recommendation and says one of the absolute requirements is that it has IS, why not answer the question instead of question his needs?

28
Lenses / Re: buy the 24-70 4 IS... or wait for the 2.8 IS?
« on: May 28, 2014, 01:32:19 PM »
It seems nobody read the part in the OP where he said "IS is a must".

If that's the case it settles it right there, get the f/4 IS.  Waiting for Canon to release anything that doesn't have a published release date is a fools errand.  Chances are you'll be sitting here a year from now posting again if you should still hold out for the 2.8 IS or just get the 4.   If you want the lens now, get it now.

29
Lenses / Re: Canon 10-22 vs 10-18
« on: May 28, 2014, 12:33:05 PM »
Lets get this one started....

Looking at MTF charts alone, how much better is the 10-22 vs 10-18? If we take the charts at face value, will the 10-22 be sharper or softer? Additionally, even if the 10-18 is a little softer, with it being half the price, would it be a much better value?

Thoughts?

The new 10-18 is 2/3 stops slower but it has huge benefits like smaller, lighter, smaller filter, 3-stop IS and cheaper so no brainer (it's a steal). If you don't have UWA go for this. I had the 10-22mm and I was happy and if you have it, there is no sence to go for the new 10-18mm.

Most of those 'huge benefits' are subjective.  Even the IS is arguable.  I'll concede that I'd rather have it than not, but if it's a tradeoff between that and a wider aperture not everyone is going to choose IS, especially at UWA.   Add in the better build quality, distance indicator, full time manual focus, 22mm, and USM and now it's not a 'no brainer' at all.  Even the smaller filter size is debateable.  All my filters are 77mm, so the 10-22 wins on that account too...  for me.  And for the final nail in the coffin, I can currently get a 10-22 refurbished from Canon for under $400, less than a $100 difference, if I could even buy the 10-18.  I'm not saying the 10-18 won't sell like hotcakes, just that the 10-22 still has its niche. 


30
Has anyone else have this issue?  I get the impression its not too common.  Is there anything I can do to prevent it from happening again?

Nope, and I primarily use my 6D for off-camera flash.  I'd chalk it up to a one-off and wouldn't expect it to happen again any more than any other potential failure. 

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 21