Recent Posts

1226

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by Dormouse on April 29, 2010, 02:11 PM »

I'm surprised at the number of vehement opinions given, which appear to take no account of a legal definition of theft. Not even with a brief read of wikipedia. Juristictions vary somewhat, but they all include aspects of unlawful taking (or not attempting to return) and the intent of keeping (permanently depriving the owner). Here, the finder attempted to return and the 'buyer' (it's unclear exactly what was being 'bought', probably just the transfer of the item) then advertised their possession of the article with sufficient information that the owner was able to identify their property and get it back when they asked. Trying to make this stick as theft would prove exceedingly difficult if there was a fractionally competent lawyer involved in the defence. And quoting a blog from  a competitor (claims to be an erstwhile competitor, but there's a surprisingly long paragraph on the previous competition), who shows no knowledge of the situation at all and appears to be using it as a rant against Gizmodo scarcely bolsters any argument.

1227

Site/Forum Features / Re: Discussion: How can we Improve DonationCoder?

« Last post by Dormouse on April 29, 2010, 07:00 AM »

Can anyone give examples of forums (with tags etc) that they think have better forum features than DC? I've seen all sorts of things like this in other places, and have generally thought that they've made things worse (or no better at best). I can see some sort of system, as on Amazon, that says "Other people who looked at this also looked at these", "If you like this, you might like these" might help navigate to other relevant/interesting threads, articles or reviews, but I don't think I have seen a feature like that anywhere - and simple tagging just doesn't do it for me.

1228

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by Dormouse on April 28, 2010, 09:41 AM »

Apple is despicable. They are a petty, vindictive, sinister, secretive, closed, greedy, back-stabbing, disgraceful and evil company.

-Renegade (April 28, 2010, 06:04 AM)

It still bears even more repeating.
And it wasn't me that said it   

1229

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by Dormouse on April 28, 2010, 09:38 AM »

 Who can pay $5000 for a phone that they know is not the person's who they are paying, and think that's right?

-wraith808 (April 27, 2010, 08:37 PM)

By paying the money and writing the story, they managed to get Apple to ask for their phone back.

If they hadn't paid the money & inspected the phone themselves, they could never have been sure it was Apple's instead of the imitation the Apple support people originally believed it to be. It wasn't impossible that they were paying for a copy.

1230

General Software Discussion / Re: Windows vs. Mac: I'm starting to change.

« Last post by Dormouse on April 26, 2010, 07:45 PM »

Limiting options up front, means that you can limit your design parameters; limiting consumer options with the device, keeps everything simple and massively cuts support needs and the number of people saying that x or y doesn't work (and they have enough of that already really given how limited the options are. And it wouldn't fit with their brand image.

I would have said that the only thing that would make them change would be losing market share to competitors purely because the competitors offered more options - except that when they were in that situation they still carried on in the same way.

1231

Site/Forum Features / Re: Discussion: How can we Improve DonationCoder?

« Last post by Dormouse on April 26, 2010, 07:37 PM »

Seems to me that DC has an awful lot of members for a site like this, so I don't think many people are being put off by the idea or practice of donating. Also seems to me that there's a lot of posts and threads and a lot of continuity of ideas and discussion as well as a lot of new ideas and discussions; not many sites have that either, and I don't think we'd have that if the mix of posters changed.

AFAICS, the site is for people interested in software (writing/using or both) and has a high proportion of nice, helpful and knowledgeable posters and a lot of that character comes across because threads do veer from serious and focussed to inconsequential and funny.

I'm not sure there's a great deal broken in any of that and I wouldn't want it to change. Not to say there aren't things that could be done better, but we don't want to risk losing anything to do it.

Which sort of brings me to the wiki. In some ways I like the idea, but I do have a concern about whether it is really the way to go. For a wiki to be useful, it needs to be kept up-to-date. There's a lot of subjects we would want in it and keeping a lot of things up-to-date on a forum as active as these would take a lot of effort and even more commitment, however many people it was spread across. I'm sure we'd be able to set it up, I'm not so sure we would succeed in keeping it going at the same level. And a lot of that effort would just be recycling stuff that is here already (even if it is not always easy to find). I just feel that there is probably a more productive way for that time to be used.

But there is a real issue over reviews. Useful reviews are ever more difficult for Search to find on the net, being swamped by software download sites and short opinions/reviews/blogs often of a single product by people whose experience and expertise is debatable once you have read the review. There is a lot of knowledge and expertise in forum members and a lot comes through in the forums. What the old, big reviews had was a systematic approach by what seemed to be a single person (?) per review, probably with extra input, and it was possible to see the biases and factors they believed important. I suspect that our time would be better spent getting closer to that model again. Possibly with comments & relevant threads being edited and maintained in an accompanying wiki, and with updates. Before a review was tackled, we could all comment on the factors we personally find important in that type of software and suggest which software should be looked at. I wasn't really around at the time, but it does feel rather like the old model.  I don't know if it is possible, but I do know that if I was looking on the net for something, it is what I would be searching for.

1232

General Software Discussion / Re: Windows vs. Mac: I'm starting to change.

« Last post by Dormouse on April 26, 2010, 06:58 PM »

What Apple are essentially doing is turning computers and related gadgets into consumer items like cd players, TVs etc which "just work". You cannot really do that without controlling the hardware and the software and without severely limiting consumer options. Earlier generations (well, at least it will be earlier generations to a lot of people here) of geeks had to spend their time with soldering irons or in garages with oil and spanners.

The Microsoft stage succeeded in separating OS from hardware in computers and thereby provided the incentive and impetus for computers to get very cheap. Apple have now been able to take advantage of the cheapness by giving a lot of people what they think they want. Designer labels are the order of the day, and that is what Apple have created.

1233

Site/Forum Features / Re: Discussion: How can we Improve DonationCoder?

« Last post by Dormouse on April 22, 2010, 08:31 PM »

i was a bit harsh o[/i]

-mouser (April 22, 2010, 07:27 PM)

If you were harsh, I'm not sure what the appropriate adjective would be for their comments.

I'd been meaning to join in the thread about why we came to DC. For me it was the big reviews. I read one (& more) and was impressed by the detail & impartiality. Over later months I had to try to remember what that site was which I thought had reviews that helped me to think about what issues I should be interested in, so I could check whether there was a review on my latest area of interest. Eventually discovered it again, even more eventually found the Forums and stayed. Of course, the big reviews appear to have ended. Not liked to mention it before since the obvious response is "Why don't you do one?" and I know I don't have the time - and can't and don't expect anyone else to either; it clearly was a major effort for anyone to have done one, let alone more. Finding a way of getting closer to that end would be good though: even with regular reading of nearly everything, having a clear idea of the current views on any area of software is difficult, and there are often so many threads now that it can be quite time consuming to track down a particular discussion that I remember reading.

1234

Site/Forum Features / Re: NANY 2011 :: A New Concept -- Have your say!

« Last post by Dormouse on April 22, 2010, 08:20 PM »

In the case of CircleDock, you know it's only very loosely associatedly with DC and the distance has always been there.

-lotusrootstarch (April 18, 2010, 05:45 AM)

IIRC, CircleDock only came about because of a competition on DC (although Eric clearly had the idea anyway).

One of the things that has distinguished CircleDock & Trout is not their meeting the criteria mentioned at the start of the thread, but the fact that they found enthusiastic supporters and developer enthusiasm was also maintained (even if, in the case of CD, it required new people to step in - thank you Markham & Dr Wicked & SgtEvMcKay). It is this continued development and support that is the mark of a successful program and that won't really be measurable at the end of a NANYaprocess, which may only have left just enough time to get a program out of the door.

As I'm not a coder, I've only just read this thread because of Mouser's How Can We Improve DonationCoder? thread and I'm not sure I really have much to say. I can see that finding different ways of making it interesting and stimulating to programmers would be good - and that probably does need some changes every year (if it is every year) - but highlighting the boring bits might not quite do that.

1235

Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: Mini Review of SugarSync and DropBox

« Last post by Dormouse on April 22, 2010, 07:03 AM »

Thought I would mention Humyo here as well. Functionality seems very similar to SugarSyncs and the pricing is $70/year for 100GB.

-markan (April 22, 2010, 06:31 AM)

10GB free is good too. Interesting that a second 100GB is more expensive than the first; I assume that is because they know there is more actual usage.

What makes me most wary of this market is the sheer number of alternatives. Hard to see that they will all survive long-term, so I'd hate to get dependent on something that might go. Even the apparently successful ones may not be very profitable, so it is hard to predict which ones will keep going.

1236

General Software Discussion / Re: DuckDuckGo - new search engine

« Last post by Dormouse on April 22, 2010, 06:56 AM »

I tried a search.

It came up with one result which was related to what I was looking for, but wasn't.

The second entry on the results page was a suggestion/link to try Google. I did, and Google came up with a page of the sorts of results I was looking for.

1237

General Software Discussion / Re: Comodo Dragon browser

« Last post by Dormouse on April 16, 2010, 01:59 PM »

Just a pointer to the fact that there is still quite a lot of software that won't work on 64-bit.

1238

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« Last post by Dormouse on April 15, 2010, 05:45 AM »

But also "best result" settings with different programs, so someone could post an image from Adobe Lightroom that looks great and they'd provide the settings "Sharpen 33%, noise reduction 10% chroma, 5% luma, reduce black level by 5", etc.

-JavaJones (April 15, 2010, 12:36 AM)

For me, the problem with the idea is that the "best settings" will be specific to both the program and the photo. And, when you are looking at any "best" result, you will probably be looking more at the user's preferences and skills than on the program's capabilities.

Since I mostly use DxO, an extra problem would be that I only have the modules relevant to my cameras & lenses. I can't remember if I can download others free (I think I can) but I'm not  massively keen on loading my computer with lots of extra stuff when DxO has a fairly convoluted update/upgrade system.

1239

Living Room / Re: UK amateur photographers: if you're good, don't use Boots!

« Last post by Dormouse on April 14, 2010, 08:27 AM »

I personally dont understand e.g. not joining in with the Euro)

-tomos (April 14, 2010, 08:04 AM)

It means that the UK is freer to decide its economic policies in its own interests rather than having to be limited by the needs/preferences of other countries.

Of course, the PIIGS were allowed to fly - but now that other countries will have to pay to save their bacon, they might not be so keen to allow it again.

And if some countries (ie Ireland) had not been in the Euro, then they would not have had such a big bubble in the first place.

1240

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« Last post by Dormouse on April 13, 2010, 06:43 PM »

my absolute biggest priority is *proper* RAW processing. Which is why it's so important to me that he names the packages he tested, so I know A: how to reproduce the tests he's done with my own files and B: potentially what products to avoid or at least be wary of due to improper RAW processing. There is also the possibility that he accepted the program's defaults but that there are ways to get more "baseline" RAW output from a given tool and he just didn't use it, in which case naming the software would allow users of it to point out how the test might be made more fair.

-JavaJones (April 13, 2010, 03:24 PM)

He has to have accepted the default automatic settings. To do anything else would be seen as unfair (the other progs' developers will have chosen their default setting) as the settings would have been chosen by him and could not be reproduced others unless he explained what settings he chose and why. And trying to get the best possible photo out of them all would have taken a great deal of time. I think what he was drawing attention to is factors in developing raws that a lot of people don't know or ignore and that (some) other programs have a tendency to choose automatic settings that look better than Sagelight initially, but have actually lost information by doing so.

I think most, if not all, the major raw processors will allow you to choose settings that lose no information and will also allow you to automate it slightly by using the same formula for groups of photos that you think are similar. I'd be quite alarmed if they lost information unnecessarily whatever you did. What he is suggesting you do when you are testing raws is to check the histograms of the befores and afters. And the other thing, of course, is not to convert into jpgs if you expect to be doing much more processing, especially if it will involve a number of stages and saves.

It's not something I worry about. over much As long as I have a pristine copy of the raws, I can always go back. Any type of automatic processing or using defaults or using the same settings for a number of images is a compromise between time saved and quality. You choose the best mix you can according to your needs at the time.

1241

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« Last post by Dormouse on April 13, 2010, 02:48 PM »

Before that blog post I honestly had little interest in Sagelight. Now I'm definitely going to try it when I get home.

-JavaJones (April 13, 2010, 01:40 PM)

If you're happy with what you have and know how to use it, then I'm not sure it's worth changing your workflow. What Rob talks about is applicable whatever software you use. That said his plans for Sagelight are very promising.

1242

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« Last post by Dormouse on April 13, 2010, 02:39 PM »

I downloaded the trial of Sagelight... does anyone know if it can do lens correction (similar to DPP from Canon)?  I looked but could not find it...

-kfitting (April 13, 2010, 10:25 AM)

I haven't used it much, but don't think it would have. It doesn't sell itself as a raw processor especially and it would be expensive to get sucked into that. Rob's already found it time consuming to support plugins. You would probably have to use something like PTLens or be very careful about how much you allow DPP to do.

1243

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« Last post by Dormouse on April 13, 2010, 07:19 AM »

I'd love to know what programmes he tried!
I really like what he writes - blog and forum - it's very informative and he's open & honest and seems to plan on making a good programme great

-tomos (April 13, 2010, 06:45 AM)

Me too; I'm hoping it will slip out some time. Of course, his comments can only really apply to the automatic settings (I hope so anyway) - if you use the histograms to manage the development for each pic then this won't happen. But that takes so much more time. It also emphasises to me the need to do cropping in raw as that can change what the histogram sees.

My own workflow is to copy the RAWs on to the computer untouched and unprocessed. And making sure I have a set that stays that way.
I then put everything through DxO on automatic settings. That gives me a better idea of what might be there.
When I want to print or use a photo, I go back to the RAW and take it through manually.
And then do final editing/tweaking on the jpg.

(I am especially good at the first two stages  )

I hope this insulates me from the problems he describes. I do find the way he writes very helpful and informative.

Partly, maybe, because he seems to share a lot of my own prejudices.
He likes Faststone amongst the free image viewers - which has never felt fashionable view.
He dislikes the plasticky images produced by too much noise removal and prettifying.
He hates anything that causes a loss of more information than absolutely necessary.

I think I will probably buy and upgrade Sagelight as it develops purely to support his writing. I can see that reading him may well help me change and develop my approach and techniques. I haven't really decided how much I will use it yet (I have collected a lot of these programs over the years), but it may be that I will end up using it a lot.

1244

Found Deals and Discounts / Re: Sagelight Image Editor - pay what you want promo (Apil 2010)

« Last post by Dormouse on April 13, 2010, 05:29 AM »

For those interested in RAW conversion, there is a very interesting post on 11th April in the Sagelight BLOG.

1245

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« Last post by Dormouse on April 12, 2010, 09:26 PM »

If you are going to look at image cataloging programs, my inclination would be to suggest iMatch as your 1st port of call. It will handle the numbers and is very scriptable and is a relatively pure cataloging program. I haven't looked at it recently though, and really couldn't say whether it will do everything you listed in the way you want - though I think it ought to, and would think Mario might well code it if the need were pointed out.

But I can't help but feel that you really, really don't want the loss of speed that will go along with the features you don't want - all the reading of info you have no interest in (assuming it is there in the jpgs), all the writing of info into each image. I'd expect image catalogers to read the images in less than 5 days - but 100GB across 250,000 images is not likely to be quick. And you will need to keep your anti-virus away from your catalog and image collection.

My suggestion would be to look at one of the tagging programs that works through a database. They should have relatively light overheads for your needs (though you would have to look into how you'd write the info into the images at some stage). It would help if the underlying database were one in wide usage. I don't have much experience or expertise in these, but other people here might.

1246

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« Last post by Dormouse on April 12, 2010, 07:13 PM »

Dormouse. I was just kidding you. Look at the sentence I was talking about - I know what you meant but to anyone not reading through the thread it probably looks bewildering!

-J-Mac (April 07, 2010, 09:37 PM)

I realised that you were (almost) certainly kidding me - and that you would have read the thread - but then realised that for anyone without the patience to read the detailed info in the thread everything I said was virtually meaningless. I hope people will at least understand what I was trying to get at now and only have to read the thread if they are interested.

Personally I'm not using RAW images - like I mentioned I don’t get to take many meaningful shots anymore and mostly work with older photos; though that presents its own challenges. Have you ever tried to digitize and them repair/optimize old, old tin and silver pics?

-J-Mac (April 07, 2010, 09:37 PM)

I've done a bit of this but not much. Played a little is probably a better way of putting it. Looking to see what happens when I do, but putting off the job of doing my best with them until I have time. And hoping that the technology will be better/easier then.

Did you ever get any response from IDI support about the problems?

Having now gone through the forums in a bit of detail, it strikes me as possible that a number (probably a small number) of users have found aspects of v5 working very slowly on their machines. And much more slowly than v4. Although there was an extended beta period, the final release is still in relatively early stages and I would expect that a lot of improvements will emerge as time goes on. It's always a problem to tie down when speed is the issue because what the program does is so complex that some things (like the original indexing) will take a long time and so users get stuck in not knowing whether it is taking longer than it ought - as originally happened with you; so maybe not everything is reported.

1247

General Software Discussion / Re: Why is it so hard to find a decent image organizer?

« Last post by Dormouse on April 12, 2010, 06:41 PM »

I currently have about 250K images, disorganized into some 4K folders that people lumped them into, taking over 100GB with more coming once in a while.  By and large they are JPEGs with a handful of GIFs and PNGs, no RAWs.

And last but not least, I want it to be FAST, both when indexing and when searching.

Does such application exist?

-zevel (April 11, 2010, 07:02 PM)

The answer should be yes, depending on precisely what you mean by FAST. Especially for indexing. And depending on what you want indexed and what else you want it to do. Complex changing of tags and hierarchies of tags could also take a while across a huge number of images if the tags are attached to the file rather than simply living in the database; with images most info is usually kept with the image so that tagging etc is independent of the program that created them - but it will have an impact on speed if you want to do a lot of complex changes.

There's nothing in your post to suggest that the program needs specific image cataloging abilities. Does that mean that a general cataloging program/database would be fine? Or is there something else you need it to do (such as read/index the EXIF)?

All the programs mentioned in this thread are specifically intended for photos and photographers. They are looking for a lot of specific features that you may or may not need - with an overhead in speed that you appear not to want - and permit changes of tagging structures, but do not expect that this will happen very often.

1248

General Software Discussion / Re: Helicon Filter won't work on my computer!

« Last post by Dormouse on April 12, 2010, 08:16 AM »

I guess I should just be patient and wait to see if my message ever gets posted on the Helicon forum, and if it does, whether it gets a reasonable response.

-cyberdiva (April 11, 2010, 08:40 PM)

Seems to have got an excellent response. And they'll hold the BdJ price for you until the problem is sorted. And they want you to try Focus out too.

1249

General Software Discussion / Re: Helicon Filter won't work on my computer!

« Last post by Dormouse on April 11, 2010, 08:17 PM »

Added note: I went to kill the process with Task Manager and saw to my surprise that there were TWO Helicon Filter.exe files actively running.  I can't imagine why. 

-cyberdiva (April 11, 2010, 03:35 PM)

Doesn't happen when it loads here.

1250

General Software Discussion / Re: Helicon Filter won't work on my computer!

« Last post by Dormouse on April 11, 2010, 08:10 PM »

Looks as if something is interfering between the flash screen showing and the full program loading. Not had that problem (currently on Vista laptop) so can't comment.

wrt tomorrow's offer, I'm struggling to see good immediate reasons for upgrading from the (now) free version apart from the soon to disappear (for a period anyway) discount. Comments indicate that a number of features haven't yet made it into 5 (they're promised before it leaves beta). The big gain, feature-wise, is supposed to be a mask so that changes can be made to selected parts of the image - but I haven't found it anywhere yet and the help files don't exist in v5 yet. Superficially at least, v5 looks remarkably similar to v4. Other feature upgrades are supposed to be coming soon now that the initial v5 is virtually complete.

Apparently it has required a major rewrite with structural changes to overcome limitations in the architecture of v4, which is why it has been over 2 years in development. I notice that there's a question at BdJ about why have an offer now when the old version is free and the new version is still in beta. I can't imagine it was really planned like that and suspect that they thought they'd have 5 launched before the BdJ date came up.

Have to congratulate them on making 4.93(2) and PhotoSafe free though.