February 01, 2015, 06:21:05 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 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 148
Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors
« on: June 18, 2013, 01:49:59 PM »
...This forum seems pretty much like all human-moderated forums.  The playing field is not level, and certain members receive more perks and latitude.  That's true of all such forums of course.  These members will make snide remarks, and if you respond in kind...you will get banned...if the mod wants to ban you.  It's all very juvenile and click-ish like junior high school (or perhaps prison), but that's a forum for ya...

Very well put. Personally I find some of the sarcastic, snide comments that the "popular kids" use to goad some of the less sophisticated users more objectionable than the outright insults. Especially when those being picked on are from outside the English speaking world and may not understand certain nuances of language and behavior.

I actually think "banning" someone is itself kind of childish and needs to be reserved for extreme cases. There are a certain percentage of participants that are clearly social misfits with obsessive tendencies. The rest of the community has a certain responsibility not to feed their compulsions, even if it might be entertaining at times to try to do so.

Canon General / Re: Question about editing for online consumption
« on: June 17, 2013, 05:29:46 PM »
Welcome to the Internet.

Short of traveling the world and personally calibrating everyone's monitor, there isn't much you can do.

In the world of print, there are standards and you can process you images to meet those standards so as to have a reasonable assurance that a properly prepared CMYK image will print consistently. Nothing like that exists for web displays. Although, starting with a properly calibrated monitor is important since you will at least know what the image should look like.

I wouldn't just give up. Here is what I do: I test out my site on every machine I can get my hands on. Not only for how images look, but also for how the website itself functions. Every once and awhile, I'll stop in at my local Best Buy and call my site up on every machine I can find, just to see how things display. When I'm  traveling and they have an Apple Store, I'll go in and navigate to my website on their iPads, to see what things look like.

Most stores are pretty understanding. If they ask I always explain what I'm doing. Since the salespeople are usually Geeks, they get it and some even help. I figure I'm probably not the craziest customer they've dealt with (although maybe close).

If 90% of your images look decent on 8 out of 10 monitors, that's pretty good. If it's only about half the monitors or half the images, then maybe you need to reconsider your post-processing. As with most things in life, the more you play at the extremes, the greater the risk.

If you want the world to see your images and be impressed by them (and who doesn't) you want to choose images that will display well. People on this site obsess over the margins, but most of that is for the benefit of personal pixel peeping.

The people you want to impress don't give a hoot about shadow or highlight detail. They don't care about subtle variations in color. They only care if the image works. If you find that a particular image doesn't work on a high percentage of monitors, then you have to be ruthless and take it out of your portfolio.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is This the EOS 3D?
« on: June 17, 2013, 01:59:07 PM »
I recall a similar thread a few years back. Went nowhere.

If a camera is in development or testing, they aren't going to slap a strap on it that broadcasts the model number.

It's a slow day at Rumor Central. Can't blame CR Guy for throwing a little chum into the waters to see if he can stir up some page views. But, no reason to swallow this one. Move along. Nothing to see here.

On the other hand – anybody recognize the other camera in his hand.

Site Information / Re: Classified for Sell Section on CR
« on: June 14, 2013, 05:01:22 PM »
I think you have your answer. 13 yes votes, one maybe and fewer than 300 views as of the time I'm posting this.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

Site Information / Re: banning people for nothing at canon rumors
« on: June 13, 2013, 04:01:08 PM »
I've been a long time critic of the moderation on this forum. I have no idea who the moderators are and if it is just one over-zealous individual or not, but I have made no secret of my disagreement with the arbitrary and inconsistent application of secret and ever-changing standards.

I have argued long and hard that the old system of "karma" was much more effective because it was a self-policing system that allowed the entire group on the forum to express their opinion. People didn't like the karma system, but it was effective in two ways – it made people more cautious about what they said and it gave readers an instant idea of whether a particular person was credible or a just a troll.

I find it interesting that one of the persons defending the moderators has a long history of belittling others on the forum with whom he disagrees. And, that's exactly the problem. In the absence of any clear standards, it is far too easy for moderators to pick and choose whom they like and whom they don't and apply different standards to different individuals.

The problem is compounded because this is an international forum. Standards for acceptable exchanges vary from culture to culture. In addition, for those for whom English is a second language, knowing the nuances of the language can be a challenge. I have great admiration for those who participate from other countries and personally, try to cut someone a little extra slack if I think English is not their first language.

Unfortunately, being a moderator is one of those jobs that too often appeals to persons who are exactly the opposite of what a good moderator should be – tolerant of differences of opinion and willing to provide people with as much latitude as possible, while trying to keep the exchange civil. It's not unique to this forum and in fact, this forum is probably better than many.

Ultimately, I'd say distant.star's approach is best – just accept that sometimes the moderators will be jerks and move on.


What are you asking?

Do you really want the boys on this site to brag about how big their equipment is?

Or, do you want to know what you need to run Photoshop CS6?

If it is the latter, then, as others have already pointed out, just about any modern machine with do the trick. Buy extra memory and get a decent video card to run things faster. Make sure you have at least 1TB of storage and expect to need to offload some of the image files to other storage when that 1TB runs out, because it will happen. There was a time when Adobe programs really pushed the limits of machines, but there are so many other resource hogs these days that Photoshop isn't that big of a deal.

Here is what Adobe says are the minimum requirements for Photoshop CC: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/tech-specs.html

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 13, 2013, 10:02:50 AM »
Why would canon release a big mpix sensor when they are market leaders? Their sales are good and they have the technology for a while. R&D costs a lot, so proper product releases are key to success...

I've wondered the same thing. Obviously Canon knew exactly what the market was for the 5DIII (Wedding and event photographers) and knew they could charge an initial premium because the high ISO performance offered ipeople a tool they could use to gain a competitive edge.

I've never figured out what market Nikon was aiming for with the D800. They had an embedded base of users who were already invested in Nikon equipment, but the market for the D800 was ill-defined at best. Perhaps they found they were losing market share to Canon and assumed it was because of their smaller megapixel count. Not sure it's really worked out all that well for Nikon.

I'm not sure why Canon would feel compelled to follow Nikon off the high-megapixel cliff. I've always felt the only way it makes some sense would be if they just switched out the sensor in an existing body (most likely the 5DIII) and slapped an "HD" on the description (5D HD). That would keep production and development cost low (especially if they just upsize the 18mp APS-C sensor with a few tweaks). But, I just don't see launching a new high resolution "flagship" when there doesn't appear to be much of a market demand for it.

If you think high megapixels are the end-all and be-all, ask yourself why the flagship Nikon has 16 mp and the flagship Canon has 18 mp.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 60D body out of stock
« on: June 12, 2013, 09:46:11 PM »
I would conclude that after 1,011 days in the top 100, the 60D still holds the number 7 and number 12 (with lens) slots on Amazon's best selling DSLRs list. Only the Rebels rank higher among Canon products. And, BTW, Canon has 12 of the top 20 DSLRs.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 12, 2013, 03:05:30 PM »
If they had made a duplicate version with no video, I would have bought that instead even if it was the same price.

Why??? How does having it hurt you? At the very least you'd be a fool since you'd pay the same for something that would have less retail value and yet behave EXACTLY the same in hand for you.

Why do so many still photographers have such hatred for video? I thought photographers were supposed to be creative, open-minded types always wanting to explore new things? Even if you don't want to, all the talk about paying as much or even more just to get a body with video disabled sounds utterly nuts to me.

It's even more nuts when you realize that DSLRs are really video cameras anyway. You can't "take out" video unless you just want to use the camera as a doorstop. And, as has been discussed many times on this forum, the video recording features reduce the per unit cost of the camera. People who say they would "pay more" for a camera that can't do video recording have no idea just how much more they would have to pay.

My interpretation...

Wire transfer goes into Adorama account holding area. Later, a human being looks at it and for whatever reason (suspicious due to no address...or maybe they just hate money or don't like customers from your state) decides to not accept to deposit it, maybe even after input from a supervisor (ie refuses it). Then, that human being or even another person, starts the process to wire it back to your bank. This maybe takes a day or 2 or 3. When you call (angry worried upset etc), you talk to someone who doesn't have all the correct facts or doesn't explain it well to you.

Perhaps not the greatest customer service to you since they certainly didn't have answers that made you comfortable or happy. Sometimes stating something that is not correct is not lying (I see this all the time and it is usually due to ignorance).

Being one state away, I might have gotten a cashiers check and taken a one day trip to NYC.

I think this is a pretty good explanation.

Let's face it. As long as human beings are involved, there will be mistakes. And, mistakes tend to multiply along the way. It's unfortunate that this happened. But it did. Based on the many comments on this thread and the experiences of many, many others, it is clear this was the exception and not the rule.

It's no fun being that exception. And, if it happened to me, I'd probably take my business elsewhere as well. But, honestly, there doesn't appear to be any great lesson that others can take away from this. Stuff happens. Life isn't fair. (If it were, I'd have $27,000 to spend on camera equipment too.)

EOS Bodies / Re: A Big Megapixel Discussion
« on: June 11, 2013, 03:04:12 PM »
It's a flagship

Not necessarily....

I'm not sure what you are basing that on...

Might be basing it on Nikon. Their flagship has 16 megapixels.

Your very basic take-away from this should be nothing other than "Don't use wire transfers."

...and get a new bank.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: June 07, 2013, 02:00:51 PM »
You are correct. I was thinking of being able to edit the PSD files.

Reviews / Re: Horrible experience with Adorama camera
« on: June 07, 2013, 01:54:07 PM »
Pardon me, but what is this "wire transfer" you speak of?

That sounds like something from the 20th century. Don't most people nowadays just use PayPal? I know it can take two-three days for the transaction to be completed, but it seems to work pretty well. It even works across countries.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud - Adobe Owns you!
« on: June 07, 2013, 01:45:52 PM »
My 2cents...

I hated this idea at first for many of the reasons brought up here.  But, I am kind of coming around in thinking about it.  I may have to go and thoroughly read the terms of service.  But - I am currently on CS5, I have not felt the push to upgrade to CS6 because the bulk of what I do is in Lightroom (I use PS for the fine tuning side of things that lightroom just can't do).  So for a user like me, PS is just a fine editing plugin for lightroom - and yeah that's definitely not worth forking over the dough to upgrade unless there is some substantial new tool I feel I need to have.

So, for someone like me, this new CC may actually not be a bad thing.  Unless there's something I am missing, I can now have the latest capabilites without having such a large up front price.  As a wedding/portrait shooter in an area that has very defined seasons - meaning my need for PS would be from May-November - at $20 a month that would mean I'd be paying about $140  (maybe more if I need it in the winter).  I have to check the fine print to see if there are penalties for letting your subscription lapse, or, some kind of silly startup fee.  This may be a loophole that they find a way to fill by implementing penalties, but, it may be awesome for the occasional user because they can now have access to $600 software for $20 (as long as they don't mind just using it for a month. 

I do hope they don't go cloud with lightroom.  We shall see what happens I guess.  If enough people boycott CC, then it won't take adobe too long to change their tune...

It looks like the month-to-month plan is $30 per application, so more like $210 for May to November. You could buy the annual plan and cancel, but there are cancellation charges after the first 30 days.

Also, if you don't have an older version of Photoshop already on your computer, you won't be able to access or edit your files during those down months.

Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 148