December 21, 2014, 01:06:52 PM

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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 190
61
I would add you need at least one boom stand, I use a big manfrotto one. :( :o
Sorry my wife is 'helping' me type!

62
Lenses / Re: Can you stack Canon 2X plus 1.4 Extenders?
« on: November 28, 2014, 01:39:54 PM »
You need to put a 15mm extension tube between them.

63
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: For 1dx owners
« on: November 27, 2014, 10:57:50 PM »
I have very deliberately not bought a 1DX because it is not a significant upgrade for me, I do realise it is a much more capable camera than my 1Ds MkIII's, but from a low iso image point of view it is not any better.

I do want a 1DX MkII, by then I will need new cameras, but for me I want/need >20MP <30MP, and improved low iso image quality. Everything else is fine as it is for my uses, indeed I will very much enjoy many of the features I am currently missing, but I need low iso IQ.

64
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Refurb 600's in stock now!
« on: November 26, 2014, 01:48:56 AM »
Sorry guys but it was in the Speedlites, Printers, Accessories section.

When I posted there were 27 left but they never last long.

65
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is there any reason to shoot sRGB????
« on: November 26, 2014, 12:21:27 AM »
Just to add my two cents;

Lightroom uses ProPhoto RGB as it's internal color space so I use that within my own workflow to keep things simple. So, if you edit RAW's in lightroom, you use ProPhoto.

No it doesn't.

All images displayed in the Library Module are jpegs in Adobe RGB, these are internally created. I am not 100% certain if it displays tagged jpegs in their native space, like in the Slideshow Module, or if they are all recreated as Adobe RGB previews.

In the Develop Module it has it's own colour space, although the chromacity levels are based on ProPhoto it has a gamma of 1.0, ProPhoto has a gamma of 1.8. You can't ever see the internal Lightroom Develop Module colour space, it is called Melissa. The images you see in the Develop Module are Melissa colour space with an sRGB gamma tone curve applied. This is why you sometimes see a colour shift when switching from the Library to Develop Modules.

In the Slideshow Module RAW files are displayed in Adobe RGB and tagged jpegs in their native colour space.

In the Web Module all images are displayed in sRGB.

Lightroom is a colour space marvel, it is extremely complicated under the hood but they did a very good job of the methodology, basically it reminds me of a swan on a lake, it looks serene and unmoving on the surface, but below the water it is paddling like a paddle steamer.

Having said all that, only for the sake of accuracy, as has been pointed out, if you are shooting RAW and using Lightroom it is close to irrelevant with a nod to the improved histogram in Adobe RGB, if you are shooting in jpegs and doing little or no post processing then sRGB makes more sense especially if you upoad or email many of your images. If you shoot jpeg and do extensive post (but why would you!) then Adobe RGB will give you more tonality to maneuver before posterization kills your image.

67
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 05:55:22 PM »
I agree, I was looking out for the people who might be impressionable enough to buy into your snake oil garbage and I assumed you knew better, sorry if I overestimated you.
Like I said, it kind of sounds logical, but is completely erroneous and you are doing those that don't know better a huge disservice by repeating such utter garbage.
Honestly, I am totally gobsmacked by the abusive resistance from the CR "regulars" to the suggestion that Canon should drop the "crop-frame" system.
I read canonrumors for many years, and I see consumers in North America complaining of how Canon is a greedy company. I also see many snub the APS-C users, as if they were ignorant and undemanding people. :(

There is a wide range of photographers on this planet, and not everyone has the money to full frame, or do not want to carry more heavy and expensive equipment. ::)

Here in Brazil, a ordinary Canon 6D + 24-105mmL is being sold in Canon official store at a price equal to 4,700 US dollars. :o :o :o :o :o There is the option to buy cameras from smugglers, and without warranty valid. :-[ :'(
I live in a city with 6 million inhabitants, where 90% of marriages are photographed with a Canon 60D or 7D + 18-135mm lens + flash. :'( In Nikon side is used D90 or D7000 + 18-105mm + flash. :-X

Someone keeps thinking that in the future all cameras will be full frame? :-X

Now this is the kind of thing that does upset me.

I have never been anti crop camera, Sella  constructs a strawman argument and implies I am, then another poster uses the same completely unconnected quote to add weight to their comment.

I do not look down on crop camera users, in many instances they offer significant advantages over ff cameras, so how come I am now quoted twice as saying I do? Crazy.....

68
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 05:49:45 PM »
Honestly, I am totally gobsmacked by the abusive resistance from the CR "regulars" to the suggestion that Canon should drop the "crop-frame" system.

Proudly being not part of the CR regular club in this case (though my post count suggests otherwise :-o) I have to say the current state of the thread goes even beyond the expected. Probably time to call it a day - surely there are lots of upcoming opportunities to call each other names. That's the problem with current board system, you cannot unsubscribe unless you delete all your posts in a thread :-\



I get where you are coming from but one of the main issues I see is people overreacting to a solid questioning of their comment or opinion, saying 'that is a stupid thing to say', is not the same as saying 'you are stupid'. I say stupid things and I don't mind being called out for it when I do, and I have been, and I don't confuse people telling me that to telling me I am stupid.

69
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 05:19:09 PM »
I agree, I was looking out for the people who might be impressionable enough to buy into your snake oil garbage and I assumed you knew better, sorry if I overestimated you.

Like I said, it kind of sounds logical, but is completely erroneous and you are doing those that don't know better a huge disservice by repeating such utter garbage.

Honestly, I am totally gobsmacked by the abusive resistance from the CR "regulars" to the suggestion that Canon should drop the "crop-frame" system.

I am just as aghast when people quote one very specific comment and then talk about something completely different. I am not pro or anti crop or ff and never said I was, they both have their uses and pros and cons.

My comment was directly aimed at your erroneous suggestion "Here's something else to chew on: The current crop of L-lenses can provide the resolution necessary for the new 7D2 "crop-frame" sensor. Yet all the current "full-frame" cameras cannot use that resolution because their sensors do not have the necessary pixel-density. So, more waste?". That is an entirely fallacious and misleading statement.

You can suggest whatever you want, I don't care, but I do hate inaccuracy and your resolution comment is so off base I felt it needed questioning. How does that make me pro or anti crop?

70
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 04:24:51 PM »
That is the kind of nonsensical, but logical sounding, bullshit people say who don't understand how a system resolution figure is achieved.

"Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up."

I agree, I was looking out for the people who might be impressionable enough to buy into your snake oil garbage and I assumed you knew better, sorry if I overestimated you.

Like I said, it kind of sounds logical, but is completely erroneous and you are doing those that don't know better a huge disservice by repeating such utter garbage.

71
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 25, 2014, 04:08:43 PM »
Here's something else to chew on: The current crop of L-lenses can provide the resolution necessary for the new 7D2 "crop-frame" sensor. Yet all the current "full-frame" cameras cannot use that resolution because their sensors do not have the necessary pixel-density. So, more waste?

That is the kind of nonsensical, but logical sounding, bullshit people say who don't understand how a system resolution figure is achieved.

72

Lastly, bridge is on Adobe's kill list- they will make an even harder push to lightroom for the next release for doing any kinds of batch editing.


There is no way Adobe will kill Bridge, Lightroom is designed for editing and storing photos, Bridge is designed for handling pretty much any image file that can be thrown at it, just look at the pathetic number of file extensions Lightroom can handle, it can't even do .psb's! Then find an image or graphic extension Bridge can't handle.

Besides anything you can do in Bridge as a Batch you can run through PS as a Batch. Do Adobe think it makes more sense to handle photo images through their photo imaging program? Probably. Bridge does best what it is designed to do, handle all kinds of files in a creative environment, Lightroom does best what it is designed for, handle photo images principally RAW files, by the tens of thousand.

First, remember this is adobe we are talking about. They do what they want. Bridge has barely change since v1 a very long time ago. One can never, ever underestimate the stupidity of adobe.

And sure enough, if you do enough reading through the adobe forums- where photogs were going ballistic over removing the export functionality - they just removed the functionality altogether.

Adobe has actually never officially responded- but they did recommend using some stupid batch export which has to open every file, process it, close it, rinse repeat. If you dont like it, then use lightroom :)

Oh I agree some of their decisions are as stupid as some of ours! But they do have a very long history of never removing anything unless it breaks something else, like my beloved Print option form CS6 that did return in CC. But honestly what is wrong with pushing people to use the photo storage program to do photo based edits, I am not a huge Batch user but never had any difficulty using LR, Bridge or PS for whatever I wanted to do, certainly the sync options in LR are more intuitive that the others, but as always YMMV.

However they would have to make a fundamental shift in direction for LR for it to start to include the file types needed by most Adobe multiple app users.

73
These anti Adobe snipes really are tiresome, $9.99 a month for the best two photo editing apps on the planet and you still bitch about them.


Until Adobe, after convincing everyone to dump their standalone programs decides that they need to up the rental to $20 per month?  Would a for-profit company do something like that?

I don't like the idea of a company forcing me to pay for upgrades that I may not want.

Quote
with every update and new feature included for free


You will have to explain to me how these are free when the customer is paying 10 bucks a month.   ;D

But in any case, if you find such discussions tiring, you might be better off skipping those discussions.

You're not, you are paying for what you get, and you are paying less than before and you are paying it monthly rather than as a lump sum if you were one of the few people who did actually buy a proper retail copy of whatever software you use.

OK, maybe not 'free', maybe included in your interest free payment plan. It is semantics, you used to pay $600 for PS up front with a price break on an upgrade, now you pay less in total, but now you pay it monthly, and it includes major release upgrades.

If you buy a 2014 car and pay $20,000 cash for it you have a car, if you lease a 2014 one and it costs you less over the lifespan of the car, but in 2016 when the model is given a refresh and the lease holder gets updated for the same inclusive monthly price, did he get it for free? You both have cars to use as you want (well in this analogy you do) the lease owner keeps current and never has a system issue because of unsupported 'cameras or computers', the 'owner' doesn't have that, never gets new features or system support.

To my mind if you agree a price now and you get more later, that extra is free, the fact that for true retail customers the monthly fee actually works out cheaper is another bonus.

You guys remind me of people who hate 'Obamacare', ask them if they don't want insurance companies to sell useless policies, ask them if insurance companies should be allowed to drop you if you need them, ask them if they want to be disallowed from getting insurance because they had the misfortune to have been ill at some time in the past, ask them if they want income based subsidies to help pay for insurance that covers those vital points and pretty much everybody says yes, but call it 'Obamacare' and they hate it.

The red herring about future compatibility is entirely bogus too, just save as TIFF's they are an almost open standard, as many of Adobe's file types.

74

Lastly, bridge is on Adobe's kill list- they will make an even harder push to lightroom for the next release for doing any kinds of batch editing.


There is no way Adobe will kill Bridge, Lightroom is designed for editing and storing photos, Bridge is designed for handling pretty much any image file that can be thrown at it, just look at the pathetic number of file extensions Lightroom can handle, it can't even do .psb's! Then find an image or graphic extension Bridge can't handle.

Besides anything you can do in Bridge as a Batch you can run through PS as a Batch. Do Adobe think it makes more sense to handle photo images through their photo imaging program? Probably. Bridge does best what it is designed to do, handle all kinds of files in a creative environment, Lightroom does best what it is designed for, handle photo images principally RAW files, by the tens of thousand.

75
These anti Adobe snipes really are tiresome, $9.99 a month for the best two photo editing apps on the planet and you still bitch about them.

How much was the last stand alone full copy of PS, $600? That is five years of payments and a free copy of Lightroom ($149 value, or 25%, or another 15 months) thrown in, with every update and new feature included for free, they don't even charge shipping. Compared to the cameras, batteries, cards, computers, phones, phone plans, cable, insurance etc etc $9.99 is a storming great deal.

Get over the 'rent' mentality, you never owned CS6, just the perpetual license you bought for it, if you don't need updates every six or so years then maybe you come out a few dollars ahead, and slow yourself down in the meantime. If you don't need PS then Adobe still sell the stand alone LR, if you do need PS then just get over it, CC has so many small features it just makes life easier. For me the two features that jump to mind are Print View in the view menu, which I use all the time and was taken out of CS6, and the Camera Raw Filter, that alone is worth it imho.

The only person you are holding back by 'refusing to RENT my software' is yourself.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 190