Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 02:56:10 AM 
Started by ButchM - Last post by pegelli
I don't feel screwed either, and I mention this because my situation is probably the same as that of a great many other customers. If I remember correctly, when we were on the 18-month upgrade cycle of perpetual licenses, Photoshop was about USD 200~250 to upgrade, and LR another USD 80. So round-figures about USD 300/18 months, or 16.67/month. Now I'm paying 9.95/month, so it's actually a good bit cheaper with room to spare in case I'm over-stating those old upgrade costs (but I think not). This is the most fair comparison to make - the cost of being to date on the old versus the new schemes. It is not an apples to apples comparison to add the variable of "not wanting to be up-to-date". That of course is another option one had with perpetual licenses, but it becomes an apples to oranges comparison because it throws in that extra variable of choice whether to upgrade. My experience was always to upgrade (after a settling-down period) because there have always been enough attractive new features or performance improvements with each release to make it worthwhile.
Mark, I think your economic analysis is right for Lightroom + Photoshop. However if it's Lightroom only (I use CS3 and it's more than enough for the very few PS tweaks I do) the 18 month upgrade cycle cost is much cheaper than the subscription. (75 vs ~180 €). If they would have a Lightroom only subscription for 3 €/month I might be tempted.

I also don't feel screwed, Adobe can sell/lease their product as they see fit. It's up to us as customers to vote with our feet whether we can support their sales model or not. My only beef with them is that their communication is very poor, mostly BS and certainly not forthright.

 2 
 on: Today at 02:50:34 AM 
Started by Doug Peterson - Last post by torger
Haven't had time to look into this in detail, but I just want to make a quick comment.

Less overlapping filters are not new, in fact as far as I know early sensors had much less overlap than newer ones. This yields more saturated colors directly out of the sensor, and the advantage of this is that the camera profile (or manual post-processing) does not need to increase saturation further. As increasing saturation means increasing noise, this is good. Early sensor were very noisy so this design approach was sort of necessary.

However the disadvantage (if we skip the high ISO sensitivity part which is not important for MFD anyway) is that if you actually want to post-process the colors you are worse off. With less overlapping filters the profile (and your manual post-processing) cannot control the color to the same extent. The color is what it is out of camera and the camera profile is better off not trying to work against it. Let's take a saturated red color as an example. With less overlapping filters that will on the raw level have large amounts of red signal and very small amounts of green and blue. A standard sensor will have large amounts of red, but also quite significant of green and blue. This means that the camera profile will have to reduce green and blue to provide proper saturation (increasing noise) but it also means that it has better ability to differ between nuances of those reds and pull them in desired direction -- as it can look at the variations of blue and green content to differ between reds.

The camera with less overlap will have low levels of blue and green in the reds and thus if the camera profile wants to differ between nuances there's more noise in the "nuance channels" so it's better off leaving the color as much as possible as-is. Phase One claim better nuances with the new sensor, and if you don't need to modify the color that is true as the color is then more complete with less contamination directly out of the sensor.

To summarize one can say that a camera that produces more saturated colors directly on sensor is not as friendly for having it's color tuned in software. However if you like the color as-is, it's all fine and better.

I wonder what design target they have had for the colors. If it is reproduction (accurate color, good for reproduction work but can be boring for other things), or a pleasing "Phase One look" which you may or may not like. My guess is that have gone more for the look, and maybe those working with reproduction is better off using the standard sensor. Likewise, those making lots of creative color post-processing may be better off with the standard sensor.

Those that make minimal post-processing and like the out-of-camera look will probably be better off with the new, but was there really a color noise problem with the old? Or are we trading color flexibility for something that really isn't needed?

 3 
 on: Today at 02:48:05 AM 
Started by Slobodan Blagojevic - Last post by pegelli
Brilliant!

 4 
 on: Today at 02:44:36 AM 
Started by Redcrown - Last post by Farmer
I Googled "Photoshop CC 2018". The majority of the hits, I'd guess 30% to 40%, were for cracks, hacks, torrents, and other ways to steal it.

But I guess that's OK. Since it surely has a a bug or two, nobody should have to pay for it.

And around 99.5% of all those hits are automatically generated just to get you to go to the site - there's not actual hacks/cracks/torrents at them.  Of those dodgy sites, probably 50% are just plain trying to get malware (or worse) onto your computer.

 5 
 on: Today at 02:44:29 AM 
Started by Vieri Bottazzini - Last post by Vieri Bottazzini
Otherworldly sunrise at the Quiraing, on the Isle of Skye in Scotland, taken during one of my Workshop on Skye last spring.



Leica S (Typ 007), Leica Super-Elmar-S 24mm and Formatt-Hitech Firecrest filters. Thanks for viewing, best regards

Vieri

 6 
 on: Today at 02:30:11 AM 
Started by MyLifeUncut - Last post by MyLifeUncut
Thanks for your replies, very helpful. I did not expect there to be a definitive answer, of course -- but generally, it seems to make sense to do the conversion as the last step (which is what I did so far).

 7 
 on: Today at 02:28:59 AM 
Started by Paul Wright - Last post by TommyWeir
In the video production world there are a few tools but the focus is generally upon copying to multiple destinations and verification of data, speed of transfer.   Simplest is Hedge www.hedgeformac.com which can trigger Applescripts etc. for renaming and so on,  but a world away from what you are talking about.




 8 
 on: Today at 02:23:38 AM 
Started by kurt765 - Last post by patjoja
I recently purchased a Canon imagePrograf 1000. There's a number of reasons why I chose to go this route over the other available options (such as the P5000) but one thing I was wondering about is where I could find A2 size Hahnemühle papers (16.5 x 23.4 in). That extra 1.4 inches of width is appealing over the readily available 17x22 size when sourcing material that is from 2x3 format DSLR sensors without cropping.

Does anyone have a recommendation of where I might be able to get my hands on A2 size paper in the US?

I cannot answer your A2 paper size question, but I'm not sure how the A2 paper size helps you with 2x3 format size  (1.5 to 1 aspect ratio).  A2 size is 1.42 to 1 aspect ratio. It seem like 12x18 on 13x19 paper and 16x24 on 17 x 25 paper would be a better fit.  Personally I generally print 12x18 on 17x22 using a wide margin.  My go to paper is Canson Platine though, which is very similar to Red River which is available in 17x25 sheets.

Patrick

 9 
 on: Today at 02:05:49 AM 
Started by michael - Last post by ErikKaffehr
Hi Bernard,

You may need to get a camera you can put film in...

It is a bit natural that cameras evolve into a common direction. Obviously, all try to achieve low noise, natural color, great DR and high ISO.

Best regards
Erik

One question.

For someone interested in trying the famous Leica look... Among the following 5 options, which would Leica experts pick:

1. New M10 at 900,000 Yen
2. Second hand M240 at 450,000 Yen
3. Second hand M9-P (sensor changed) at 450,000 Yen
4. Second hand SL at 600,000 Yen
5. Second hand Q at 400,000 Yen

Thanks.

Cheers,
Bernard

 10 
 on: Today at 01:54:19 AM 
Started by patjoja - Last post by patjoja
There a plenty of offers for genuine Canon PF-05 print heads on eBay for prices between $311-$330 which is well below list.  I've bought 3 of the PF-05 heads on eBay without any problem.  As with any transaction on eBay you want to make sure you are dealing with a highly rated seller.  Also make sure the listing explicitly says new genuine Canon PF-05 heads.  I've had good luck with Japanese and German sellers.

I found PF-05 print heads on Amazon Prime for $350, and ordered 2.  In fact I've got them already!  Love my Amazon Prime!

Thanks!

Patrick 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10