I liked the range of subject matter. Nice to see there's a lot more to the area than Amazon, Microsoft, and the Super Bowl Champions.
Carl bcn: First, Lightroom stopped having release candidate versions. Later, it was left behind when new features (namely the ability to paint on radial/graduated filter masks) were added to Camera Raw. Now it seems it is not getting even the updates to the ACR engine?What's next, LR for computers being discontinued and replaced by its ios-only mobile version? I hope that's not the future...
ACR updates for CS6 don't contain any new features that ACR for CC gets. Just updated camera and I guess lens support.
To expand on Carl bcd's answer, Adobe has claimed they are treating LR and ACR differently, at least in part to comply with revised US federal revenue recognition rules. Because ACR CC is under subscription it gets new features any time, like the painting on the mask feature, but because LR has a standalone version it can only get new features on a paid upgrade.
Apple referred to the same federal revenue recognition rules some time ago when they charged for certain updates.
Fogsville: Film emulations. For people who are too lazy to use the real stuff?:-)
You realize that the available range of film and paper types is shrinking at a rapid rate, which has only accelerated since the digital tipping point was passed?
In many cases it isn't that people are too lazy to use film, but the film they would like to use is simply no longer made. When that happens, these digital emulations of film may be the only way left to get that look.
shauravraj: Too freaking expensive for a student enthusiast like me .... why can't they make something cheap and affordable. Do any of you guys know any cheap photography drone?
Saying this is "too expensive" borders on entitlement thinking. Just a few years ago this was unavailable at any price. If this is too expensive...what is your camera budget? Because most of the really good bodies on DPreview - without lenses - start at around $799.
If drone photography is that important to you right now (i.e., there are so many other areas a "student enthusiast" should probably be concentrating on), just find someone in your town who rents good drones. You will pay a lot less to rent a better drone than this, than you will spend to buy this drone.
marc petzold: Nice Info about that particular picture background, i was happy to read it,more of that, please. That composition looks very good to my eyes.
Apart from that, the Canon 16-35 L II Lens wasn't that good reviewed at lenstip, for example:
Canon EF 16-35 mm f/2.8L II USM11. Summary
solid, sealed barrel, excellent image quality in the frame centre, chromatic aberration sensibly controlled, only slight distortion, taking into account the focal lengths range, low astigmatism, low vignetting level, very quick, silent and accurate autofocus, lens hood and a case included.
unacceptable image quality at frame edge in the aperture range from f/2.8-4.0, average work against bright light, bad price/quality ratio.
You are both right, because how focus is handled depends on the goal of the artist.
If the artist wants to create a "snapshot" that recreates what the eye sees at one split-second moment, then BadScience is correct and the one spot the eye was focused on at that moment should be in focus, and everything else should be as non-focused as they would be in human peripheral vision.
If the artist wants to create an "immersive" scene where you are able to examine your surroundings in detail as if you were standing there with time to look around, then RPJG is correct. Because what BadScience doesn't account for is if you were standing there looking around such a wide scene, as your eye moves from spot to spot, all those spots would be in focus at the moment the eye looks at them. Therefore all areas should be in focus in an immersive scene.
That's why you're both right. Because how an artist translates a real world 3D unlimited-time scene to a 2D still image is ambiguous and negotiable.
Saffron_Blaze: Wonder how they are going to deal with Personality Rights and Model Releases. Flickr is essentially a re-user by selling these images and it is their responsibility to ensure consent is obtained where required. For the type of commercial use they are engaging in here they would normally need them. I guess they are hoping those identifiable people never find out they have been sold by Flickr.
If Yahoo has good lawyers, they will be like nearly every other photography sales website out there: either requiring that all subjects be released, or more likely, that you the submitter are responsible for securing any necessary rights and you have the liability for any violations. Not that you couldn't challenge that, but Yahoo is big enough that they will probably cover that base, probably by trying to put the burden on the photographer (who should have that covered anyway).
backupgeek: Flickr making a profit printing your pictures, while you make nothing.
There are at least seven types of licenses you can assign to the pictures you post on Flickr.
If you marked your pictures Copyrighted or any of the Non-Commercial types of Creative Commons licenses, Flickr won't be printing your pictures.
Tim O'Connor: The LR update is still not showing up in Creative cloud for some reason...
Lightroom is an exception in that it will not completely die if you stop paying.
Gosman: Nasim comments on the new upgrade in his editorial today:
Lightroom rarely crashes on my and I hardly hear about it crashing from most people. Also, I get OK performance, but I'm on a Mac, not a PC.
Makes you wonder what is up with his system configuration...
RichRMA: At what point do displays exceed the resolution of the human eye to see detail presented? Since the eye can only concentrate on a small area at a given time, just a few degrees, these displays must be approaching the limit of vision.
A couple people are pointing out that the highest acuity is only applicable to a narrow field of vision. While true, that information doesn't change anything and is useless, at least for now. For now you can only buy panels with the same resolution across the entire panel, so if you want resolution that matches human eye acuity it is going to be across the entire panel regardless of how little area you can actually see at that resolution at one time.
The question can't be answered correctly without taking viewing distance into account. If that little 293 ppi screen is meant to be used as a viewfinder or other close vision display, the dpi makes a lot more sense than if it is meant to be developed into a larger tablet or computer display.
That is why Apple doesn't go past 220 ppi on its Retina Macs, but goes to 326+ ppi on its handhelds. They don't want to waste resources going much further than the capability of the eye.
Apparently he had to endure taunting and derision from some members of the crew who said he "should not be taking photos with a camera as big as an iPad."
Zeisschen: Wow, that eagle flight is impressive! What a speed!
But what's up with that 12.000$ Canon lens falling apart in the middle after someone just fell on it? Is that the almighty famous L lens built quality?? LOL
Uh..."someone" wasn't just anyone.
Do you expect any lens to withstand impact from a fully armored but out-of-control 200lb football player?
AbrasiveReducer: If I were a camera manufacturer my worry wouldn't be about lack of innovations or not enough solutions looking for problems. My worry would be that all these cameras and most of their predecessors are completely adequate for most people's needs. There is little reason to upgrade and far less to switch.
Furthermore, the real advances are happening far from the Canikons of the world. The traditional companies want hundreds of extra dollars for wireless capabilities, remote viewing, remote tethering, high frame rate video, etc. while the mirrorless, action cam, and smartphone camera segments build all that in and let you do things like use your smartphone or tablet as a remote viewfinder and for wireless capture storage.
The traditional camera manufacturers are desperately fishing for where their next big sale is coming from, while all the other companies are zooming past them in innovation.
AksCT: This article does not claim to be a "comprehensive and technical review" of the camera. It contains a lot of subjective and personal views of the author. Clearly, as posted in these comments, others have broad and differing personal views.However, it is quite disappointing to see unrelated and inappropriate comments.
Oh gee, Ontario Gone thinks opinions don't count, now I don't know who to believe...the "objective" reviews done by bloggers who do all their testing in their bedroom (note: not referring to DPR there), or the "opinion" of a veteran photojournalist who encounters a wide range of challenging conditions and is asked to shoot NFL games from the sidelines...
Tomrood: Anyone using the words hate or puke in a review does not really sound like a professional. And to top it off she wrote 25% about a ridicules feature that no camera in existence has. And if u ask me no pro cam wil ever have this... can u imagine how it would look if all the photographers during a sports game where talking to their camera..hilarious!
I really don't understand why DPR even published this..
I have seen this photographer's byline long before this story, before seeing a photo of the photographer, and I respected the work as professional work.
I think she has earned the right to say whatever she wants about photography. And furthermore, I will go as far as saying that no one would have cared that those words were used if the picture of the photographer showed a male, middle-aged white graybeard.
Photato: Any reason why Apple is still using a 4:3 Aspect Ratio sensor in a 16:9 world?All the pictures are shown top/botton cropped on the iPhone 16:9 screen or with side bars when zoomed out, same for HDTVs.As for Video, most of the sensor's pixels are wasted into a 16:9 crop. Here the lens behaves more like narrower 38mm eqv.I am scratching my head wondering about Apple's famous attention for detail. LOL
It is a 16:9 world unless you are posting to Instagram which is a 1:1 world, and all of a sudden Apple's 4:3 sensor makes a lot more sense.
Gregm61: Better than the crappy Kodak Instamatic mom and dad used in the early 70's, but not something I'd use to shoot my vacation pics today. Great for recording the sign in the airport parking garage though so I remember where I parked.
It's a realistic perspective. I started with an instamatic too, so I am very familiar with the potential image quality of an Instamatic and 126 film.
Most good smartphones can beat an Instamatic 126 combo. In low light, smartphones and especially the iPhone will utterly dominate an old Instamatic with 126. It is actually possible to get a sharp low light shot with an iPhone, where a cheap film P&S won't be able to hike up the ISO, won't be able to optically or digitally stabilize, and won't be able to reduce noise.
I've scanned a lot of my old 126 film and you'd be surprised how blurry that stuff was, for all of the above reasons.
That sensor is so sensitive, you have to be careful what you say around it.