Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 21 
 on: September 26, 2016, 09:04:31 PM 
Started by Theodoros - Last post by Theodoros

Up!

 22 
 on: September 26, 2016, 08:57:30 PM 
Started by Paulo Bizarro - Last post by Arlen
It looks like a really beautiful and interesting place. Craters within craters.

 23 
 on: September 26, 2016, 08:55:31 PM 
Started by Rory - Last post by ButchM
Nothing vital gets lost waiting it out.

Except your monthly stipends to Adobe continue regardless if you update or not. Those payments continue regardless if the updates function as intended or not. At least if you get a bad cup of Mocha chino at Starbucks, you can walk back to the counter and and they will pour you a fresh cup made the right way.

Of course I understand that software development is much more complicated ... nor do I expect Adobe to be perfect ... but they certainly could put forth a bit more effort to hold themselves to a much higher standard. I thought there would be an increase in complacency once they moved to the subscription model ... but I thought it would take much longer to get there.

One of the selling points for CC was that subscribers would not have to wait for updates, they would receive them as they were available ... but what is that bonus worth if almost every update either doesn't function as intended or the implementation of same breaks longstanding traditional functionality? ... the discovery of which comes very late in the process when if they applied just a bit more effort in their testing they could avoid much of these problems. I recall Adobe said one of the great benefits for everyone involved was that they would no longer have to rush out updates based upon a number on the calendar ... but take  whatever time was necessary to get it right before release ... What happened to that sentiment? Was it just empty rhetoric to entice users to subscribe? Now that they have subscribed, doe that attitude or desire no longer exist?

I look at it this way. I paid for v1 the day it was released and each and every subsequent new version upgrade since then (including v6). I have also been a CC subscriber for nearly two years now and I am working 2-3 version updates back because the current version(s) of Lightroom don't work properly for my workflow. What are we paying for? Even considering the monthly fee is small, some would say insignificant ... however, over the span of years, that total does indeed add up. Sure, Adobe is fairly diligent about adding RAW support for new cameras and lens profiles as they are possible ... but what good is all that effort if you can't install the new support because they broke something else in the schema ... it is indeed a 'Comedy of Errors' ... only problem is, it is fast becoming much less humorous.

 24 
 on: September 26, 2016, 08:47:10 PM 
Started by rastas - Last post by Benny Profane
A good retoucher can do pretty much any kind of photography. Limiting oneself to architecture is going to limit ones pocketbook.

 25 
 on: September 26, 2016, 08:44:46 PM 
Started by Theodoros - Last post by DanielStone
The Actus Xl should be considered a studio camera only.  At over 10 lbs. without a back or lens I consider it unusable for field.

Victor

Maybe it's just me, but having come from a large format*4x5, 5x7 and 8x10) background, "10lbs" is the weight of a (small) 4x5 camera and a few lenses. I'm 28, so 10+ lbs isn't too bad for me, but then again I'm usually only doing a few miles round trip, not crossing the Himalaya ;)

-Dan

 26 
 on: September 26, 2016, 08:10:09 PM 
Started by Rory - Last post by Mark D Segal
Rory, I think the fact is that by the time they are ready to issue a new release, it isn't to solve previous operating problems - those are dealt with long beforehand; it is to introduce support for new cameras, new security concerns and new features; more often than not those new features are very worthwhile. For example, the new Transform Panel is something I have been using every day and it is excellent. They also do stuff to improve efficiency under the hood and that is also welcome. The main problem is the self-evident short-circuiting of QC/QR, which is unfortunate, because as an application grows in complexity and sophistication, and the needs and computing environments of users expand, one has to expect scope for glitches. There was a time when Adobe had a very extensive external testing apparatus in place, especially in the very early days of the application. I think they need to seriously consider re-introducing this approach, which will be of interest to the early adopters who either don't mind or even enjoy being beta testers with its attendant risks; this would be in the interest of both the company and the rest of the clientele who just want things that work properly when the commercial release happens. Of course it uses supervisory/management resources and perhaps they are reluctant to spend that money.

 27 
 on: September 26, 2016, 07:49:23 PM 
Started by hasselbladfan - Last post by BJL
Well... yes. Perry Oosting said as much. In the V1D specs, they used a 100 mpix sensor cropped to square and found out that the output was exactly 75 mpix, for 75 years of Hasselblad. And indeed it uses the G1X lenses, that what is mounted on the mockup on the photo.

If the price of the 100 mpix sensor gets down, they may even build the camera. But it will be more of a fashion statement than anything else.
I hadn't noticed that the lenses are real (there "spartan" styling makes them look like fakes too) and are for the X1D (I got those letters garbled). So much for the debate over whether it will have a mirror.

But with no mirror, there is a double affectation here: not just square sensor, but the deep cube-shaped body, with all that extra depth pointless if there is not a mirror inside.  And of course there is the faux film winding knob . . .

 28 
 on: September 26, 2016, 07:42:51 PM 
Started by Rob C - Last post by graeme
And one more...

 29 
 on: September 26, 2016, 07:41:39 PM 
Started by N80 - Last post by N80
Thanks all. Very useful information. I will probably lean toward glass. I might try my hand at cutting it. How hard is it to cut plexi-glass or lexan? I know they are probably less desirable than glass but if they are cheaper and easier to cut this might be the way for me to go. Again, this is not gallery stuff. These just hang in my house.

 30 
 on: September 26, 2016, 07:38:38 PM 
Started by Rob C - Last post by graeme
A few from Turton Tower, Lancashire, UK.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10