November 25, 2014, 04:06:01 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 - unfocused

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69 70 ... 147
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 21, 2013, 04:28:17 PM »
Because of their introductory pricing, I suspect many will access the service for the first year, while holding on to those copies of CS6.

I'm also thinking about going to CS6 from my current CS5 and watch how things go with subscription model, but what about this Adobe Application Manager that I apparently am forced to download for CS6 and all the complaints about it on the web? 

What truly useful feature does CS6 have over CS5?

I'd not heard of this you have any links pertaining to Adobe App Manager, and problems with it?
Just from the sound of it, it sounds like the Windows Manager type thing that MS came out with a few years ago when trying to update things, etc....



I've been using CS6 for nearly a year.  As far as I know, Adobe Application Manger seems to be just an updater that tells me when they have updated the software (bug fixes, etc.) and then automatically downloads the fixes. I've never had a problem with it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 70D Coming in July? [CR2]
« on: May 21, 2013, 04:06:10 PM »
If this is accurate, I don't know why there would be a need for  much "final testing" if the 70D is to have the same sensor as the 60D.

I'm also not sure why everyone assumes that the 70D and 7D II will share the same sensor if the 70D gets a sensor upgrade. Canon has three sensors in three full-frame bodies. It's very possible we could see a new 22-24 mp sensor in the 70D and then an 19-22 mp sensor in the 7D II.

It seems like you are planning to kill a fly with a cannon (Canon?)

You may be carrying too much equipment to manage for an event of this type. Just how big of an event is this? Are we talking a major corporation with hundreds of employees participating in intense athletic events, or are we talking about a bunch of desk jockeys having a good time and building some camaraderie?

One wide-angle/normal zoom and one moderate telephoto zoom will keep your choices simple and enable you to concentrate on taking pictures, rather than worrying about which piece of equipment to use at any one time.  Renting a second body is not a bad idea if you are worried about something happening. But, as rmt3rd said, this ain't a paid gig.

If you do rent a body, I'd put the 70-200 on one and the 24-70 on the other. Throw the 430 EXII in the bag in case you need some extra light. Load up on cards and call it good. One body? Put the 25-70 on it and save the 70-200 for a handful of long shots.

Don't forget the first rule of shooting for a client (which is what you will be doing). If the client is happy, you are happy. If the client isn't, then you can't be. If your co-workers are used to and pleased with cell-phone candids, don't assume they want Sports Illustrated-style event photos. Remember, that most of subjects will be more than happy with a grinning, thumbs-up post event victory photo.

This isn't an opportunity for you to show off and use your equipment, this is a job (although a non-paying one) and your responsibility is to give the client the pictures they expect. I suspect that will be lots of pictures of people laughing, having fun and maybe doing a little drinking.

Several good and reasonable reasons have been identified here. But one that hasn't been mentioned that also contributes to this is that Canon is a multinational company. Its costs cannot be limited to any one nation or one currency.

A falling Yen does not reduce the costs of its production facilities in other countries and it may actually increase some of its costs for materials and labor.

Another major consideration – Advertising makes up a huge percentage of a company's total costs. A falling Yen is not going to reduce the cost of advertising in National Geographic or any of the hundreds of publications that Canon advertises in. They have to pay for those ads in the local currency, so exchange rates, again, can hurt as much as help.

When talking about a company the size of Canon, there are just too many variables to presume that one thing (like the exchange rate of the Yen) will have a major impact on prices

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Advice on 1st flash
« on: May 14, 2013, 07:38:48 PM »
If you are in the U.S. you can get the 430 EX II refurbished from the Canon Store right now for $204. Or you can buy it new for $259. It's a great flash and the main practical difference from the 580 EXII is that you can't plug a battery pack into it.

Eventually, if you really get into flash, you will want that option, but when you reach that point, you can probably sell the 430EX II for not much less than you paid for it.

The other primary drawback is that it uses the optical trigger slave function (like the 580 EXII) instead of being a radio slave (like the 600 EX RT). Again, eventually you may want that function, but initially you won't miss it. The 60D can be used as a flash controller, so you can experiment with off camera flash with the 430 EX II.

A word of caution though, it is a "gateway drug" to Speedlite dependency. Once you get started down that path, there is very little hope of turning back and one day you will wake up and find yourself in bed with four or five 600 EX RTs.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you trust your camera?
« on: May 14, 2013, 10:19:41 AM »
Never trust a camera. They are clever, pathological liars, incapable by nature of telling the truth. They are particularly troublesome because their lies are so clever and so subtle that they have convinced a large portion of the population that they are honest and impartial.

It is the responsibility of a photographer to know better.

Recognize this essential fact about cameras and understand that you will spend your life alternating between two equally futile goals.

The first is to try to squeeze as much truth as possible out of an unwilling and uncooperative machine.

The second is to try to form an alliance with the little liar and use its natural inclinations to achieve your goals.

Mastering these two impossible-to-master skills is the lifelong work of being a photographer.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:01:07 PM »
Private, you make a number of excellent points.

Your examples are just some of many that I think Adobe hasn't thought through.

I think one of the interesting things will be how this plays out over the next year and a half. Because of their introductory pricing, I suspect many will access the service for the first year, while holding on to those copies of CS6. The real impact on Adobe may not show up until August, 2014, when all those entities who took the introductory pricing the first year fail to renew.

I think Adobe is gambling that they can sell customers on the subscription model over the next year. The problem with that gamble is I don't see that Adobe has a good exit strategy, but Adobe is giving their customers a year or more to devise their own exit strategy and is giving their competitors a year to get to market with alternative products.

As I said at the beginning of this discussion, I can really see Corel being a strong acquisition target for a company like Google, which already owns NIK and has the resources to develop a strong competitor. 

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 13, 2013, 12:42:04 PM »
According to the Adobe site, all you have to do is show a Student ID that is valid, and having a valid .edu email address also helps.

Frankly, I'm working now to register with a local college, for $50 I can get a student ID, and I will use that to buy the CS6 suite, for my own use. Plain, simple, legal.

And I have read the FAQ from Adobe themselves, and it is perfectly legal to use this educational copy for commercial uses.

Look under the "How can I use my software" section.


Wow! That agreement is much looser than I imagined. I didn't know they allowed it for commercial use and I didn't know there was an upgrade path. Very interesting. Honestly, the agreement almost seems to be inviting abuse – allowing persons to buy one edition every year, accepting anyone employed by a school, etc.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 13, 2013, 10:46:08 AM »
Regarding Student-Teacher Software licenses, does anyone know what the licensing agreement actually says, or are we just having a bar stool legal discussion?

I've never purchased the educational version. I wonder what the agreement actually requires. Does it prohibit other household members from using the software? Does one need to be registered in a course that requires the software? Can you purchase software not related to the classes you are taking (for example, if a taking an HTML course, can you only purchase Dreamweaver, or are you eligible to purchase the entire suite?)

I always thought part of the purpose of educational software was to promote the product by establishing a base of students who know and use the program and then, when they leave school, they will be more inclined to a) encourage their employers to use that software program and b) when they advance to the point where they are making purchasing decisions for their employers they will be more likely to select the software.

In other words, I always thought it was as much a marketing tool as anything. That was, I assumed, one reason why the purchasing rules are rather lax, but the company offers no upgrade path.

Following Meh's logic, it seems that a student who buys CS6 to use a part of a hobby that is unrelated to school work might also be guilty of pirating the software.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 11, 2013, 03:11:14 PM »
...So far I see subscription as more affordable way to get an expensive software even if it means paying more in the long term.

Except that with the "Creative Cloud" system it is not a more affordable way to get expensive software. The "affordable" model Adobe instituted and followed for at least two decades was the "upgrade" path. Make your initial investment in the software and then, over time, you can receive discounted upgrades and expansions, until ultimately, you have a full suite of software available to you at a substantial savings.

The trade off was clear – you got rewarded for being a loyal customer and Adobe had a built-in base of customers for software upgrades. One of the frustrations with the new Cloud system is that Adobe is changing the rules on users who have played by their rules.

I've done the math every which way and even with the special introductory pricing, customers end up paying more. But, as others have said, the money is only a part of the problem. Many long-time users felt some loyalty to Adobe and were their best advocates. There are many other issues as well. 

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 10, 2013, 09:12:24 PM »
There are lots of ways Adobe could have made this more attractive to consumers.

Instead of a one-year rental, they could have offered longer terms at discount. $20/month is actually not a bad deal.  But that's their "special introductory" pricing for CS6 owners. That creates uncertainty and Adobe has pretty much said they intend to jack up the price next year. If I could lock in for $20/month over 3-5 years it would be much easier to swallow.

No reason they had to base it on unlimited usage. Allow persons who don't use every program every day to  pay a small fee when they are using a program.

No reason why the model had to be based on unlimited programs. They could offer a plan where people would pay for their choice of 3, 5, or 8 programs for example. You want Photoshop, Illustrator and Dreamweaver. Somebody else needs Fireworks, InDesign and Dreamweaver, etc.

Point is, Adobe adopted a very narrow profit-maximizing model, rather than a customer-based model. Scott Kelby and others who owe their living to Adobe can talk to their blue in the face about what a great deal this is, but the customers know otherwise.

If you offer a choice and people take you up on it, it's a good deal.

If you don't offer a choice and force people to take something, it's not going to be a good deal.

Adobe, sadly, didn't have enough confidence in their own product to try to win customers by attracting them to the product, instead they chose a forced model.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe to Stop Making Packaged Software
« on: May 09, 2013, 10:37:50 PM »
Please sign this online petition. I do not know if it will do any good, but it is certainly more effective than just sitting around on this forum complaining:

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 07:46:01 PM »
I believe even "photographers" in the film era would combine more attractive skies (with clouds) to enhance landscapes. No photoshop. It's still photography high and mighty people.

Well, as a matter of fact, 19th century photographers like Timothy O'Sullivan did combine clouds and foregrounds on prints made from glass plates. In part, because the plates were not able to capture the full spectrum of light, so to recreate the scene they had to merge images.

But, keep in mind that in the early days of photography, documentary ethics were not well-defined. Roger Fenton's famous image of cannonballs on the road in Crimea being a classic example. Remember that photography was viewed as a substitute for newspaper illustrators and, of course, artists took great liberties with scenes when they were drawing images for the press in the 19th century, so photographers thought little or nothing of recomposing a scene to make it more interesting. (For example, Alexander Gardner's "Rebel Sharpshooter" who was most likely moved to the spot where Gardner took the photo).

Of course, just because something was done in the past doesn't make it right and today, no respectable news photographer would dream of re-arranging a scene. It's a career ending move.

Still, we are not talking about news photos here. These are grey areas and one must determine what one is comfortable with. I think the only deadly sin would be to intentionally deceive. (See the discussion a year or so ago about the "art" photographer who claimed to have gotten a picture of the moon rising over the desert that was clearly debunked by dozens of people on this site and others)

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?
« on: May 09, 2013, 02:28:22 PM »
I hope this was okay I just wanted to see the difference if adjustments were made as suggested.  I only took about 4 or 5 minutes so I just copied the original and tried adding some global adjustments as suggested, just for giggles...

Cooled the sky added some exposure, subtracted some exposure, saturation and sharpening, leveled the horizon... it's not that terrible but is still the original composition... Idk...  Sky may be a little overdone yet but it seems like good suggestions and doesn't feel like cheating as much as correcting...  I hope it was okay to do this, I wasn't trying to offend anyone.  :)

Everyone must find and follow their own ethics, but Krob78's changes sort of summarize mine. I have no problem pulling details out of different layers from the same image, adjusting colors, exposure, etc. To me, that is really just a more sophisticated version of what we used to do in the darkroom with burning and dodging. It's already there in the negative/raw file so it existed when the picture was taken.

Personally, I'm not all that uncomfortable with some removal of extraneous objects, depending on the image and its use. I'm less comfortable with adding things that were never there or moving objects around.

If you've read any of my posts over the past few days, you know how unhappy I am with this move. But, I don't really think it's fair to say there is no exit strategy.

Adobe says they will make CS6 available for download indefinitely. So, if you drop the system after a year, you can still use Photoshop CS6 to open and edit your files. Now, will CS6 be able to open files 5 or 6 years from now? That's another question. But, that has always been a problem with virtually every program that exists today. There are no universal standards and no guarantees that today's formats will be accessible tomorrow. If you've ever stored anything on a floppy disk, you know the problem.

Pages: 1 ... 66 67 [68] 69 70 ... 147