Re:Where to get decent photo editing done [a bit O
on
Adobe Lightroom Review
·
· Score: 1
You said that you don't have the time, but you may want to consider taking the time to learn how to do this yourself anyway.
Sure, there are a whole bunch of people that could edit your photograph in a technically correct fashion, but, from an artistic standpoint, how are they going to have any idea what you were thinking when you took the picture? You took the picture for a reason - you had something in mind when you took the picture - otherwise why would you have bothered?
If you are worried about taking on a full-featured tool like Photoshop, why not try something like Elements? You can learn the essentials of editing with a tool that automates most of the 'hard' parts. When you get the hang of it, you can try something a little more advanced.
So we'd have the Congress involved in making laws for each locality? Yeah, that'd work - just ask the folks that live in DC how well it works for them...
I deal with B&H too, and I like them, but I very seldom get anything other than accessories there. Why? Because if I'm about to drop $1500 or more on a camera body or lens I really want someone that is able to answer questions.
Before you get your hackles raised, understand that I had pretty much the same experience as you did. I went to a local camera shop to buy a specific camera body and wasn't terribly interested to hear anything other than 'cash or credit?'. I had spent a couple of months researching different models and was absolutely clear on my needs. When I got there, tho, the salesman wouldn't sell me the $3500 camera until I tried other body/lens combinations. I was annoyed 'cause I was absolutely sure that I knew what I wanted and didn't want to spend any more time on it. But he was persistent and asked reasonable questions, so I went along with it. The short of it is I ended buying something at about half the price that was much closer to my actual needs. Yes, I probably paid more than I would have from one of the box stores, but the extra service was worth it - that's why I keep going back.
Now, I'm not questioning that you have knowledge of what your needs are and have a similar knowledge of whats available. I'm not questioning anything, really. I had a completely different experience than you did.
You may want to consider giving your local dealer another shot. You may find that they had a good reason to ask the questions that they asked...
That's why I Touring-test every single person I ever chat with on IM clients.
Well, I'd leave the room too - after all, running around visiting a bunch of places is a little extreme just to get to talk with you. I think a Turing test http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/ may leave you feeling a bit less lonely.
I thought part of the push for open standards was so that citizens could read all the government documents without having to spend an assload of money on proprietary software available from only one company.
It all depends on your point of view.
Massachusetts has decided to use open standards for a bunch of reasons - one of which is to make their proceedings more accessable to their citizenry, just as you indicated. IBM, on the other hand, being a for-profit corporation with shareholders to please, has a different reason. They're there to sell stuff. They want to sell licenses for their WorkPlace products. If there is a benefit outside of this goal, so much the better for them...
It would be wonderful if IBM was looking out for the citizens of Massachusetts, but long experience with software vendors tends to make me believe otherwise.
The GP was correct in that IBM could potentially sell lots of its software to the Massachusetts government if it adops open standards. IBM could care less about citizens because they aren't the potential customers.
A whole new area of taxation! What a boon to the goverment's coffers! What a field day for CPAs and accountants!
Under your rules, I get taxed twice for being a photographer - once on the income that I earn from selling my photographs and again for having the audacity to copyright them so someone else can't get income from selling my pictures. And, even if they do, they only have to pay once because they didn't copyright it!
Go ahead. Sue. Make some lawyers happy. After years of litigation and after millions of dollars are spent, Sony says 'nolo contendere', settles out of court and you get a free CD for your trouble.
Or, better yet, don't buy a Sony music CD. Sony gets sued all of the time for various reasons - it's part of the cost of doing business. Their stockholders are used to it. A significant drop in sales will be far more likely to get attention.
'Power Leveling' is in no way related to using a 'bot. You actually have to play the game when you are being helped by a stronger player - you still have to learn all of the peculiarities of race/class/profession in order to be successful. 'Bots 'play' (and I use the term in the loosest possible sense) the game completely without human interference - a player using one will know nothing more about how to play a character when their character is in the highest levels than they did when they created it.
I guess if the object of someone's game play is to have the most level 60 characters, then using augmentations like 'bots makes perfect sense. I much prefer just playing the game - it is, after all, what I am paying for...
Assuming that the free market ideal actually could exist anywhere human beings are present, your idea works only for performance arts and other types of art that exist only in that moment in time and aren't inherently copiable. You are paying not only for the content but for the originality of the presentation.
Literature and photography are a bit different.
They are both immensely copiable - they have to be. Unless you are working with a vanity publisher, one copy of a book is pretty much useless and a single copy of a photograph will probably never be seen. Without copyrights, authors and photographers simply have no way of protecting their work.
I would love to believe that people would willingly pay for something that they enjoy without being forced to. I would also love to believe that plagiarism doesn't exist. I really would. Experience has taught me otherwise.
It would be nice if Hollywood finally realized that almost all movies that revolve around a big-name actor end up bombing.
I always love it when I read this one. Along with being untrue, it's also illogical. Actors can demand and get huge salaries because - suprise, surprise - people do go to see moves based upon nothing other than the star being in them. This is why they are a star.
Look at it this way. You have a certain amount of money to invest in films. You can either (1) use it to fund a marginal property that makes a bunch of money with a star that people know (yet another the Deuce Bigalow movie, for instance) or (2) Fund a couple of art flicks (which do notoriously badly at the box office) with people that nobody ever heard of. Incidentally, the board of directors and stockholders, none of which are particulary interested in ars gratia artis, will hand you your walking papers if you choose badly. Now. Which will you pick?
I can't understand why any intelligent and well-informed person would buy an iPod instead of the Karma, unless they simply want to broadcast their metrosexuality to the world.
No, not really. I bought an iPod because I wanted something that worked.
I really wanted to buy a Rio Karma. It had some good features and I liked the design. When they became available to order, I ordered one. Three months later, I actually got it. It was DOA. The second one was too.
The delay in shipping sucked, but I could tolerate it. A single dead player I could tolerate. Two dead players out of two is a trend. I didn't really feel like waiting around a whole lot longer for Rio to finally get it right so I got an iPod.
No, I'm not saying that they should test all possible circumstances. I am saying that a reasonable amount of time is certainly allowable for verification testing when you are modifying something as complex as IOS. The differences is, I guess, what your idea of reasonable is.
I'm lucky in that I work in a company that is large enough and has the resources to have a separate environment to test patches before they are applied to our production systems. Everyone else has to depend upon the vendor.
They've been working on a fix for 4 months. How long should they get?
Long enough to make sure the fix works without breaking some other function. Or would you prefer that they release the updates without making sure that something important - like, say, BGP updates - still works? That'd be *real* smart.
I, personally, would prefer that Cisco makes sure that they haven't added new unintended features to IOS before they release new code.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, there are a whole bunch of people that could edit your photograph in a technically correct fashion, but, from an artistic standpoint, how are they going to have any idea what you were thinking when you took the picture? You took the picture for a reason - you had something in mind when you took the picture - otherwise why would you have bothered?
If you are worried about taking on a full-featured tool like Photoshop, why not try something like Elements? You can learn the essentials of editing with a tool that automates most of the 'hard' parts. When you get the hang of it, you can try something a little more advanced.
So we'd have the Congress involved in making laws for each locality? Yeah, that'd work - just ask the folks that live in DC how well it works for them...
For the most original misspelling of the day. At least so far.
Before you get your hackles raised, understand that I had pretty much the same experience as you did. I went to a local camera shop to buy a specific camera body and wasn't terribly interested to hear anything other than 'cash or credit?'. I had spent a couple of months researching different models and was absolutely clear on my needs. When I got there, tho, the salesman wouldn't sell me the $3500 camera until I tried other body/lens combinations. I was annoyed 'cause I was absolutely sure that I knew what I wanted and didn't want to spend any more time on it. But he was persistent and asked reasonable questions, so I went along with it. The short of it is I ended buying something at about half the price that was much closer to my actual needs. Yes, I probably paid more than I would have from one of the box stores, but the extra service was worth it - that's why I keep going back.
Now, I'm not questioning that you have knowledge of what your needs are and have a similar knowledge of whats available. I'm not questioning anything, really. I had a completely different experience than you did.
You may want to consider giving your local dealer another shot. You may find that they had a good reason to ask the questions that they asked...
Who needs backstory when you can do sequel? Hell, it took George Lucas five more movies to tell us where Vader came from...
Thirty minutes later, I finally got the joke. Sometimes it takes me a bit - I guess it comes with getting old...
Well, I'd leave the room too - after all, running around visiting a bunch of places is a little extreme just to get to talk with you. I think a Turing test http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/ may leave you feeling a bit less lonely.
It all depends on your point of view.
Massachusetts has decided to use open standards for a bunch of reasons - one of which is to make their proceedings more accessable to their citizenry, just as you indicated. IBM, on the other hand, being a for-profit corporation with shareholders to please, has a different reason. They're there to sell stuff. They want to sell licenses for their WorkPlace products. If there is a benefit outside of this goal, so much the better for them...
It would be wonderful if IBM was looking out for the citizens of Massachusetts, but long experience with software vendors tends to make me believe otherwise.
The GP was correct in that IBM could potentially sell lots of its software to the Massachusetts government if it adops open standards. IBM could care less about citizens because they aren't the potential customers.
No, we are at war with Eastasia and have always been so. You must rectify unthinkful crimethink spread by agents of Goldstein.
Guess I missed the email...
A whole new area of taxation! What a boon to the goverment's coffers! What a field day for CPAs and accountants!
Under your rules, I get taxed twice for being a photographer - once on the income that I earn from selling my photographs and again for having the audacity to copyright them so someone else can't get income from selling my pictures. And, even if they do, they only have to pay once because they didn't copyright it!
Maybe my future is in tax law...
Or, better yet, don't buy a Sony music CD. Sony gets sued all of the time for various reasons - it's part of the cost of doing business. Their stockholders are used to it. A significant drop in sales will be far more likely to get attention.
I guess if the object of someone's game play is to have the most level 60 characters, then using augmentations like 'bots makes perfect sense. I much prefer just playing the game - it is, after all, what I am paying for...
Yes, they do want to be visible and read. They also want (and deserve) to get paid for it.
Literature and photography are a bit different.
They are both immensely copiable - they have to be. Unless you are working with a vanity publisher, one copy of a book is pretty much useless and a single copy of a photograph will probably never be seen. Without copyrights, authors and photographers simply have no way of protecting their work.
I would love to believe that people would willingly pay for something that they enjoy without being forced to. I would also love to believe that plagiarism doesn't exist. I really would. Experience has taught me otherwise.
I would be fascinated to hear some of your 'moral' ways of getting paid for my works.
Or are you just against somebody having any rights whatsoever to something that they produce?
Gee, my PSP has WiFi. So what's your problem?
I thought "death toll" was what the pennies on your eyes were for...
Go on. Tell me where it's from (no Googling, either!)...
I always love it when I read this one. Along with being untrue, it's also illogical. Actors can demand and get huge salaries because - suprise, surprise - people do go to see moves based upon nothing other than the star being in them. This is why they are a star.
Look at it this way. You have a certain amount of money to invest in films. You can either (1) use it to fund a marginal property that makes a bunch of money with a star that people know (yet another the Deuce Bigalow movie, for instance) or (2) Fund a couple of art flicks (which do notoriously badly at the box office) with people that nobody ever heard of. Incidentally, the board of directors and stockholders, none of which are particulary interested in ars gratia artis, will hand you your walking papers if you choose badly. Now. Which will you pick?
Why is it shit? Because it doesn't work or it works too well?
No, not really. I bought an iPod because I wanted something that worked.
I really wanted to buy a Rio Karma. It had some good features and I liked the design. When they became available to order, I ordered one. Three months later, I actually got it. It was DOA. The second one was too.
The delay in shipping sucked, but I could tolerate it. A single dead player I could tolerate. Two dead players out of two is a trend. I didn't really feel like waiting around a whole lot longer for Rio to finally get it right so I got an iPod.
I'm lucky in that I work in a company that is large enough and has the resources to have a separate environment to test patches before they are applied to our production systems. Everyone else has to depend upon the vendor.
Long enough to make sure the fix works without breaking some other function. Or would you prefer that they release the updates without making sure that something important - like, say, BGP updates - still works? That'd be *real* smart.
I, personally, would prefer that Cisco makes sure that they haven't added new unintended features to IOS before they release new code.