GBarrington

<p>Well I think you can make an argument that Photography doesn't have the cultural significance that it used to. I wrote about it in my blog back in April: http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2016/04/photography-simply-doesnt-matter-any.html<br /> In that sense no one actually does care about individual photographs. The <em><strong>idea</strong> </em>of photography is important to our culture, but there's so damn MUCH of it, most of the individual photos simply don't matter all that much to the culture.<br /> I'm not going to summarize the article, I'm kind of proud of what I wrote, go read it if you're interested.</p>

<p>I'd choose to be the best photo critic. I've gotten used to being a bad photographer so the idea of not ever reaching the level of moderately good photographer is something I've already come to terms with!<br>

Besides since I've started my blog, I find I enjoy writing about photography!</p>

<p>A week or so ago, I wrote an article on this subject and posted it on my not for profit blog. While it is specific to ACDSee Pro and Ultimate, I think many of the concepts are transferable to other software titles. It is my belief that photographers are not achieving all the Dynamic range possible from their cameras. They seem to be clamoring for MORE of what they aren't using!<br>

http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2015/04/maximizing-dynamic-range-with-acdsee.html</p>

<p>I'm one of the drift aways. I used to be a subscriber, but I haven't subscribed for 3 years, at least.. I have been lurking for the last week or so just to see what has changed, if anything. Nothing has changed that I can see. <br /><br /> For me, critiques are very important. But posting on Photo.net is like tossing that photo into a big black hole. I'm not very good as a photographer, but I am enthusiastic as a photographer. There is no sense of real community. <br /> <br /> I get far more input from my Flickr account than I ever got here. And what little feedback I would get on Photo.net was the sort of advice along the lines of I should never forget or violate the rule of thirds, or that my photography properly belongs on Deviant Art. Really? Deviant Art? There is a strong feel of a BBS for a 1950's Camera Club on this site, if ever such a thing did or could occur.<br /><br /> The managers of this site need to figure out is this an "Art site", a "Gear site", a "beginner's site"? WHAT? There is no focus. Yeah it will drive some existing users away, but but I would remind the managers that as the old timer users die off, you need new people to replace them. What is the incentive to attract new users?<br /><br /> The infrastructure IS ugly and outdated. But that isn't going to save this web site all by itself. Don't place too much hope on that 'fix', if there isn't a vision of what this place should be and COULD be, it will just be a pretty empty box.<br /> Sorry to be so blunt, but this is why I'm never here any more.</p>

<p>Actually I use both ACDSee Pro 8 and PSP X6. I use Pro 8 as my photo manager and raw developer, and PSP X6 as a companion bit mapped editor. Though I rarely use PSP any more, since the only thing I use it for is when I need layers, which ACDSee won't do.</p>

<p>To tell the truth, the bit mapped editor built into ACDSee Pro is now good enough, that I no longer think of it as some sort of 'touch-up' editor. It is capable of some very subtle work. ACDSee Pro's newest features include Pixel targeting and something they call a blend mode. PT allows you to build a mask built around lighting zone and color information contained by specific pixels. One (admittedly cheesy) example of its use would be if you only wanted certain parts of the sky to be "bluer" with out changing other parts of the sky at all.</p>

<p>The ACDSee blend modes seem to function like the blend modes in most editors with layers. But it is NOT true layers. But they are named after and appear to function like layers blend modes. It is possible make an edit and then select a blend mode and offer a different effect (either quite subtle or "over the top"). I'm not sure how this function works, but it is kind of cool.</p>

<p>I did not upgrade to PSP X7 as I don't think the upgrade price would have bought me much in the way of extra value, since I use it so rarely. This does not mean though that I think has no value. It is a very good bit mapped editor. And its raw development capability is far better than people give it credit for.</p>

<p>The thing is PSP's raw tool does things a bit differently. More like the first generation raw developers, it focuses on developing a raw photo to the perfect exposure, which you would then finish off in the bit mapped editor. This is a common sense approach for a PSP centric workflow, and when viewed from that perspective, it is a very good raw developer. But for most of us used to the 'soup to nuts' approach of Lightroom, ACDSee Pro, or CaptureOne, it seems . . . odd. We've been spoiled, I guess.</p>

<p>I wrote two articles on my personal, not for profit blog on using both Pixel Targeting, and on how to get the most out of PSP X6's raw development. And I think they're pretty good. I'm not sure if the Photo.net rules permit posting another site's address, so if you are interested, you can look meup on blogspot. just put <em>"http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/"</em> in your internet browser.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But if the only adjective you can think of for Photoshop is "destructive", then it suggests a skewed outlook.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's just silly. . . It's a form of classification that's been around since at least Lightroom and ACDSee were introduced, it's not a moral stance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Give it a rest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure what you are referring to, but. . .OK . . . I guess.</p>

<p>Edit: No, by golly! Explain yourself!</p>

<p>I've been researching on how to improve the noise control in ACDSee pro 7 for an ongoing series of articles I'm putting in my personal blog. Ironically, I felt the need to buy Topaz Denoise to have something to compare my results against, and some of the techniques found in DeNoise can actually be used in ACDSee Pro immediately. I would think it should work with any software that is able to de-saturate and then re-saturate a photo without losing anything color wise. (Lightroom and the like - most NON destructive edit programs).<br>

<br />The directions are specific to ACDSee, but I think (I hope!) most people can figure out how to do this in THEIR favorite software. BTW, if you try this with destructive editors (Photoshop, Paintshop Pro, Serif, etc.), don't blame me for the results!<br /><br />When in the Develop module, make all the changes you want to a color photo. And when you are ready for noise control, in the General section, under treatment, click on Black and White. This will immediately de-saturate your photo (don't worry, the color is safe). Then go into "Detail" and make your luminance noise adjustments. It is so much easier to see the luminance noise in a B&W photo and make adjustments with the color not getting in the way of your work. When your luminance adjustment is done, go back to the General section, under treatment and click "Color". Your photo is re-saturated like it was before. Now you can go back to the Detail sub-tab and adjust for any color noise. (The noise that is left is either color noise or the luminance noise you have chosen to not address)<br /><br />I think it works so well because it allows you to easily identify the TYPE of noise you are dealing with in discrete steps and avoid spending time trying to find the "balance" between color and luminance noise.</p>

<p>I personally have been reasonably content with the noise level of 4/3s format since my E30 but there ARE times that it needs help. I think the newest NR software does just fine with getting rid of noise and in making the remaining noise aesthetically pleasing. I am particularly impressed with the combination of ACDsee Pro 7 and Topaz DeNoise. YMMV</p>

<p>It is very cinematic. There is almost a Film Noir feel to the photos, but of course many of these photos predate the world's awareness of Film Noir as a style. This may have even been the impetus for that style. I don't know, I am speculating on that.<br /><br /> For me, this work implies that Brassai has full knowledge and acceptance of his subject's flaws. I don't know if that means he approves of their flaws, or loves them because of their flaws.<br /><br /> Certainly not all of the photos appear to be the sort of shot we associate with love! But I do think he has come accept that he can do nothing about their flaws, and those flaws do not lessen the value of his subjects to him.</p>

<p>I can produce crummy photos with any format, I really am that special.</p>

<p>I have some Canon FL series prime lenses (consumer grade - not Pro grade) from my my Canon FT-QL days and while I don't need their focal lengths, I wonder if they would add anything of value to my E-M10. It's been a long time since I've used them. <br>

The FL series lens mount didn't lend itself to adaption to digital photography with Oly DSLRs, so they've been sitting idle for a LONG time. They seemed OK when I used them, but lens design technology has made steady improvements since the early 1960's Does anyone have an opinion if they are worth the cost of buying an m4/3s adapter?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just handled the E-M10 today as well - a friend purchased it. It is very close to the E-M5, except for a slight difference in the shape of the buttons as well as in the positioning of the rear top right buttons, which are resting on an angled surface in the E-M10. The rear has more plastic, but the front looks as solid as the E-M5. It's interesting that they added a built in flash - I wonder how challenging it was to make place for it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What I wonder is what is the appropriate place for the E-M5 successor? Aside from water/dust resistance there isn't a lot of room between the E-M1 and E-M10 to squeeze in another camera. I guess they could make a more video oriented camera. Olympus has always sort of emphasized still images over video. Maybe a weather resistant E-M10 with better tools for video, could be sandwiched in between the M1 and the M10 with a price between the two.</p>

<p>My initial tests with the 4/3 lenses were in the camera shop. But outside, in cloudy bright weather, the 14-54 mk1 was almost acceptably fast. Not good enough for action or sports, but probably good enough for landscape, still life, and architectural shots.<br>

In spite of this, I will probably use manual focus with the 4/3s lenses on manual focus (with the exception of the 9-18, which seems about as fast as the m4/3s 9-18). The E-M10 is a joy to manual focus and is more reliably faster and sometimes more accurate than any auto focus. With this camera, I don't see much downside to manual focus on the CDAF lenses.<br>

Yes, that Olympus branded 4/3s converter is grossly overpriced, but if you're coming from the Oly DSLR world, you'll wish you had it.</p>

<p>Consider ACDSee Pro 7. I use it and consider it's raw development to be excellent. I moved from Lightroom a little over a year ago and wouldn't go back if you paid me. Well, if you paid me I'd consider it! But it works exactly the way I want to work.<br>

Here in the US it's on sale right now at a pretty good discount from its regular $200 price.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=190082">Greg Chappell</a> , Mar 27, 2014; 09:24 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Your DSLR lenses are all also substantially larger than any of the micro lenses you are using, and the micro lenses you are using are not the best ones available. Buy a higher-end normal zoom more in line with your 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 like the 12-40mm f2.8 M. Zuiko or the 12-35mm f2.8 Panasonic. Comparing your 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 optically to the kit 14-42 that comes with micro cameras (or even the Zuiko 14-42 DSLR kit lens) and finding it not as good is no big surprise. I doubt too many Canon users find the 18-55 kit lens as good as the 17-55mm f2.8 either.<br>

The Four-thirds 9-18 is a better lens across the frame than the tiny micro 9-18, which is all about size. If you need better performance and want a micro-specific lens, get the 7-14 Panasonic or at some point next year there will be a 7-14mm f2.8 from Olympus, and I'm being told by the local Olympus dealer the upcoming 40-150mm f2.8 that I am first on their waiting list to buy could be available as early as towards the end of April.<br>

There are better optical options. You just have to be willing to buy them like you did in choosing the 14-54 f2.8-3.5 Zuiko (no "kit" lens) for your E30 over the DSLR system kit 14-42 Zuiko.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are correct for the most part, but I wanted to see how my DSLR lenses worked with the camera; and frankly, they work better than I expected. I don't think the m4/3s lenses are as good as the DSLR lenses across the level of quality grades. Remember, the 4/3s lenses were telecentric, meaning in the simplest of terms, that they only used the center portion of the image projected by the lens, the softer edges of the projected image were not used. The m4/3s lenses because of the size restrictions, take a more conventional approach of using the entire projected image and then try to use software corrections to improve the image. don't get me wrong, the m4/3s lenses are pretty darned good, but it will be a very long time before they can match the IQ standards set by the telecentric lenses.</p>

 

<p><strong>First the good</strong><br /><br /> I'm pretty well pleased with the thing, overall. This is the camera that Olympus has been trying to build since the 1960's. This should not only be a hit with pros and serious amateurs, but the general public as well.<br /><br /> When I came home with it, my wife sighed and said, "not another one!" But as soon as she saw it, she went , "OOOHHH!", and picked it up. She mentioned that it was like my "other camera, but tinier". Lust was in her eyes, and it wasn't for me. I suspect Olympus will be pretty happy with this camera's sales performance across all demographics.<br /><br /> I was surprised at how DSLR like the performance and handling is, and the EVF is surprisingly easy to use. I was comfortable with the EVF easily within 5 minutes. There is a LOT of information in the EVF, almost as much as on the viewscreen. It's a touch viewscreen but it's pretty well thought out as to what touch can or can not do, I think problems caused by the nose touching the screen will be rare.<br /> <br />DSLR hold-outs, this might be the inexpensive solution that you've been waiting for.<br /> <br />Image quality is pretty high. I suspect though that this camera (and other mirrorless cameras too) rely a lot on software adjustments to make an inexpensive lens perform better, which leads us to:<br /> <br /> <strong>The not so good</strong><br /> <br />The kit lens while pretty good for a kit lens is NOT as good as my 4/3s 14-55 zoom lens. It is a bit softer, particularly at the edges, and it won't close focus like the 14-55 for quick and easy close up photos. <br /><br /> With an adapter, the 14-55 works reasonably well,but it does hunt to find the focus. I suspect I will need to investigate the use manual focus for best results. This is true of my elderly, but curiously sharp 40 - 150 mm DSLR kit lens as well.<br /><br /> In general, I will have to assess each situation to decide if speed or detail is the primary need for the photo. If I need speed, I will use the native m4/3s lens; if I need detail, I will use my DSLR lenses.<br /><br /> My later generation 4/3s 9-18 will focus almost as fast as theM4/3s 9-18 version (the sales clerk and I tested both in shop), and from what I've read, the m4/3s version isn't quite up to the sharpness standards of the regular 4/3s version. The sample photos bear this out. I'm really looking forward to using this lens!<br /><br /> My DSLR lenses are just plain better optically than the m4/3s lenses, and this bothers me now that I see them in operation in a mirrorless situation. In my opinion, the E-M1 solution for DSLR lenses needs to be applied to ALL cameras in the OM-D line. <br /><br /> PLUS, it is now clear that any software publisher who wants to remain in serious competition as a raw developer will have to commit to creating and maintaining specific camera body and lens profiles. Yes that is going to be a royal pain, but unless the camera manufacturers decide to build better lenses, that is going to be the price of admission.<br /> <br /><strong>Also,</strong><br /><br /> The user's manual is dreadful, poorly written and poorly organized. It is nowhere near the quality of the manual for my E500 and E30. If this camera becomes as popular as I suspect, there will be a booming business in third party instruction books.</p>

<p>This has been coming for at least 40 years. The last photo shop in Springfield, Illinois closed in 1972 or so. So I don't think the big online retailers had much to do with it. I suspect the conversion of cameras to high markup luxury goods to low mark-up consumer goods had at least as much as the internet.<br>

There is SOME hope on the horizon, I think. Cardinal Camera (a St Louis regional chain) opened a store in Springfield last year, so maybe we are at the beginning of another 40-50 year cycle! Prices are 'reasonably' competitive with the internet. We'll see if they survive! I hope they do.</p>

<p>For RAW, I found PSP X6 difficult to control, to find that 'sweet spot' between "too much" and "too little". I do think it is by nature a bit too "contrasty", a trait I think it shares with its close cousin AfterShot Pro. It does well on the highlights, but less well with shadows. I was able to get a reasonably good raw image from it, but I don't think it was optimal. (ASP did well with shadows and less well with highlights. That being said, it still produces a usable image I think, just not optimal.<br>

I don't know if Photo.net allows posting to someplace like DPR, but coincidentally I had done a sort of 'mini shootout' of 4 different programs capable of developing raw. This wasn't a test or review of the entire program, just their raw development capabilities. <br>

Below is the link with the dots taken out and replaced with "<dot>" if you replace the <dot> with a "." is should get you to the thread.</p>

<p>www<dot>dpreview<dot>com/forums/post/53230421</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm in the same boat, (also motivated by DAM desire), subscription LR&PS won't work on my Vista 32 > upgrade to Win8 won't work on my computer (and it's an iffy investment on my older computer), >newPC=$$, > considering Corel AftershopPro. Features seem good, price is reasonable.<br />Does anybody have any experience with it? Also I recognize it's not the mainstream so it might be a dead end in time?<br />Of course CNX2 ain't gonna quit working just because it's no longer available. (and I have many far weaker links in my photography than processing software!)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Corel PSP X6 is an excellent editor. It has all the features found in Photoshop that I need. The other stuff, aren't things I care about. I object to your calling it "Not mainstream" it is mainstream, it's been around at least since the 1980's about as long as Photoshop itself. It's mainstream, it just isn't Photoshop.</p>

<p>Where I feel it is weak, is in its DAM capabilities, and while its raw capabilities are reasonably good, I don't think is as good as the best of the raw developers. It would be OK for light duty raw use, but I don't think most people would be happy with it as their sole raw developer.</p>

<p>I used to use Lightroom, and I had used Lr since before version 1 of Lr. I have since moved to ACDSee Pro 7 as my DAM tool and as my raw developer. Having moved to it I do at least 95-99% of my work in it solely. The remaining 1-5% I send to PSP X6. </p>

<p>I think the quality of these two titles is every bit as high as a combination of Lightroom and Photoshop CC6, and I have paid a fraction of the price that I would have paid for an all Adobe workflow.</p>

<p>It's like any other tool. Wizards, slider controls, and buttons CAN'T take the place of taste and judgement. I have it, and for free, it's a great tool. I use it sporadically, more as a spur to creativity than anything else. To get me out of a creative rut and shake the cobwebs loose. Do the photos I alter with it ever get seen by others? Not very often, but frequently the ideas I come up with from using sometimes do. either in my photography or my writing.</p>

<p>I've not use Photo Suite 8, so I don't know if it is a REAL editor or not. But in my mind, stringing together a bunch of stand alone plug-in apps via a specially written front end doesn't mean you have an editor. It means you have a bunch of plug-ins that play well together. </p>

<p>If a person wanted to avoid Adobe products, I wonder if going to products designed from the ground up to be an editor, like say, PaintShopPro, or Serif PhotoPlus, wouldn't be a better solution. At least you know you would still have scripting languages, batch tools, proven color management, etc. Maybe I'm just being cranky today!</p>

<p>I've been pretty happy with my HP Omni 220 AIO. I don't keep up with Apple products, so I don't know if it 'competes' with them or not. The colors are accurate, I have no complaints in that area. To be fair though, I say at least 50% of my work is B&W conversions.</p>

<p>The screen is 23 inches. As I age, I do wish the screen were a bit larger.</p>

<p>I left Lightroom for ACDSee Pro 6 (now Pro 7) and I am very satisfied with the results (I shoot ORF). I also bought PSP X6, as a companion editor for layers and the things that Raw/Workflow tools don't do (like layers), but in truth, since I got Pro 7, I don't use it much at all. Easily 99% of my work is done with ACDSee Pro 7.</p>

<p>Absolutely not. </p>

<p>Compare the "Street" photography of those days, with what passes for "street" today. There is a huge difference in style and content.<br>

Much of the 'good' work of that bygone era was done with the full complicity of the subject. They were fully aware of the photographer and often stared directly into the camera. The photos are as likely to be of boys, girls, women and old men, as well as teen-agers. There is a huge variety of race and social status. It was documentary photography of that era.<br>

The street photos of today, are most often taken without the subject's knowledge and are far more likely to be of young women in tank tops and short shorts than they are anything else. And regardless of the subject, the photos feel opportunistic and a bit exploitative to me.<br>

I'm not saying those types of photos weren't taken back then. Human nature being what it is, I'm pretty certain they WERE taken in those days. But I AM saying they aren't the photos that have survived to this day. I think we might have lost something significant in Street photography.</p>