 |
| From fō-tō-gră-fē Wallpapers |
16:10 ratio
 |
| From fō-tō-gră-fē Wallpapers |
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Reflection on a Wooden Floor
Some sunlight through a door on a wonderfully textured floor.
4:3 ratio
16:10 ratio
4:3 ratio
 |
| From fō-tō-gră-fē Wallpapers |
16:10 ratio
 |
| From fō-tō-gră-fē Wallpapers |
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Latte Art Wallpaper
Some latte art I poured.
4:3 ratio
16:10 ratio
4:3 ratio
 |
| From fō-tō-gră-fē Wallpapers |
16:10 ratio
 |
| From fō-tō-gră-fē Wallpapers |
Friday, April 16, 2010
Red Leaf Wallpaper
A red leaf. Nothing special.
4:3 Ratio
16:10 ratio
4:3 Ratio
 |
| From fō-tō-gră-fē Wallpapers |
16:10 ratio
 |
| From fō-tō-gră-fē Wallpapers |
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Why the Camera Companies Suck Balls
I present to you a photo of two remote shutters. One of them is a genuine Canon, the other is a cheap Chinese knock-off. Actually, no! It's not even a knock-off! It may look like a Canon, but it doesn't have the Canon logo on it, nor is it even for a Canon. It's for my Panasonic GF-1. But that's not important at this time. What is important is that they are both remote shutters. They both look similar. And they both get the job done perfectly.
But now for the big difference. One of them cost $70 and the other cost $8.99, which included shipping FROM HONG KONG.
Have you ever wondered why the remote shutter for the Canon Rebel line-up costs $30, or even the IR wireless shutter can be had for around $20? But then, the shutter for the next camera up costs over twice as much even though it does exactly the same thing? Because Canon is fucking you, that's why. They've made the cable connection different for every camera, which means you can't buy the cheaper shutter and use it on an expensive camera.
They think that if you can afford the nicer camera, you can afford to throw a bit more money at them. That's scummy. And Panasonic is even worse.
Now, you'd think that since the GF-1 is targeting a somewhat entry-level pro-sumer market that their accessories would be priced accordingly. Ha ha! Not at all! The remote shutter for my GF-1 is EIGHTY dollars! Ten dollars more! Spending more makes me feel professional!
Aggghh! The shutters all do precisely the same thing. Does my Chinese version feel a bit cheaper in the hand? Yeah. But it's firm and has already taken hundreds of photos with no signs of wear or tear. It's ridiculous and I hope I can stop as many people as possible from making my mistake.
I learned from it. I ditched many of the genuine accessories early on. Some of the parts, yes, you definitely want the genuine parts even if they're over-priced, but a fucking remote shutter is not one of them.
Screw them all. Hit eBay, and remind those retarded companies why China is eating their lunch.
But now for the big difference. One of them cost $70 and the other cost $8.99, which included shipping FROM HONG KONG.
Have you ever wondered why the remote shutter for the Canon Rebel line-up costs $30, or even the IR wireless shutter can be had for around $20? But then, the shutter for the next camera up costs over twice as much even though it does exactly the same thing? Because Canon is fucking you, that's why. They've made the cable connection different for every camera, which means you can't buy the cheaper shutter and use it on an expensive camera.
They think that if you can afford the nicer camera, you can afford to throw a bit more money at them. That's scummy. And Panasonic is even worse.
Now, you'd think that since the GF-1 is targeting a somewhat entry-level pro-sumer market that their accessories would be priced accordingly. Ha ha! Not at all! The remote shutter for my GF-1 is EIGHTY dollars! Ten dollars more! Spending more makes me feel professional!
Aggghh! The shutters all do precisely the same thing. Does my Chinese version feel a bit cheaper in the hand? Yeah. But it's firm and has already taken hundreds of photos with no signs of wear or tear. It's ridiculous and I hope I can stop as many people as possible from making my mistake.
I learned from it. I ditched many of the genuine accessories early on. Some of the parts, yes, you definitely want the genuine parts even if they're over-priced, but a fucking remote shutter is not one of them.
Screw them all. Hit eBay, and remind those retarded companies why China is eating their lunch.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
New Raw Processing.
I'm new to the world of RAW photo processing. I've been doing it for a couple of years (All the cool kids DO it), but have only been using the RAW program that comes with Photoshop. I've experimented with all of the major programs and am just leveled by the amount of CPU cycles eaten up by these fucking horses of programs.
Adobe Lightroom, I'm being literal, sends my CPU to 100% with ANY ACTION. Any! It's absurd. I can only assume that someone operating on an old single-core cpu, although still running at 3.2Ghz, just isn't considered a legitimate market to Adobe.
DXO, Bibble, Capture One, the whole lot of them are similar. At least Bibble is a BIT faster. What the fuck! What ever happened to optimization? What ever happened to finding little tricks to reduce the CPU load? Why do I need a bloody server farm to process photos?
Capture One is a freaking nightmare. It creates cache folder EVERYWHERE, and never seems to store thumbnails. It always reloads photos when moving through a gallery. It's slow as a snail. How the hell is this worth $300? I'll tell you something, it's not. Not even close. It's not even worth pirating. Seriously, pirate something else.
Adobe Lightroom seems to be becoming my go-to program. Although, it's a lot slower than just running my raw files through Photoshop. Greater control; a butt-load slower. Lightroom tries to get you to use it as a full library and photo manager program... don't. It's slow as shit. Google's Picasa is free and it does a better job.
I can say from all of this is that if you're paying, get DXO. If you're pirating... well, still get DXO, but also consider Adobe Lightroom. Lightroom has an ENORMOUS problem in that it won't compensate for lens distortion. I have no idea what ganja Adobe is smoking to think that they can pass off a $400 program for RAW photos without any lens correction, but they're doing it. I would never buy Adobe. I'm kinda' sort of using it because I pirated it. Otherwise, DXO gets all of my love.
A shout-out to Noise Ninja, though. You should so get that.
Adobe Lightroom, I'm being literal, sends my CPU to 100% with ANY ACTION. Any! It's absurd. I can only assume that someone operating on an old single-core cpu, although still running at 3.2Ghz, just isn't considered a legitimate market to Adobe.
DXO, Bibble, Capture One, the whole lot of them are similar. At least Bibble is a BIT faster. What the fuck! What ever happened to optimization? What ever happened to finding little tricks to reduce the CPU load? Why do I need a bloody server farm to process photos?
Capture One is a freaking nightmare. It creates cache folder EVERYWHERE, and never seems to store thumbnails. It always reloads photos when moving through a gallery. It's slow as a snail. How the hell is this worth $300? I'll tell you something, it's not. Not even close. It's not even worth pirating. Seriously, pirate something else.
Adobe Lightroom seems to be becoming my go-to program. Although, it's a lot slower than just running my raw files through Photoshop. Greater control; a butt-load slower. Lightroom tries to get you to use it as a full library and photo manager program... don't. It's slow as shit. Google's Picasa is free and it does a better job.
I can say from all of this is that if you're paying, get DXO. If you're pirating... well, still get DXO, but also consider Adobe Lightroom. Lightroom has an ENORMOUS problem in that it won't compensate for lens distortion. I have no idea what ganja Adobe is smoking to think that they can pass off a $400 program for RAW photos without any lens correction, but they're doing it. I would never buy Adobe. I'm kinda' sort of using it because I pirated it. Otherwise, DXO gets all of my love.
A shout-out to Noise Ninja, though. You should so get that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)