by Dayo at 21:31 GMT - Wed 16 May 07
NO FILTERS WITHOUT A VALID PHOTOGRAPHIC REASON!
Many buy so called "protective filters" to be left on their lenses as a
permanent feature but does it stand up to rational scrutiny?
Don't get me wrong, I can understand using them when there is a definite
risk of unwanted effects. However, your eyes are precious and delicate aren't
they? I bet you don't wear safety goggles 24/7 in order to "protect"
them.
|
|
|
by Dayo at 18:53 GMT - Thu 20 Sep 07
WHICH ONE IS THROWING THE ROCKS?
Fresh from tackling US monolith, Microsoft, is it time for EU
Competition
Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, to take on the Japanese Camera
Manufacturers on
their ridiculous pricing policy that essentially mean the rest of
the world
including EU residents effectively subsidise the US market.
Neelie, the Old Battle Axe appears to be the only hope of
rectifying this
situation.
|
|
|
by Dayo at 13:43 GMT - Thu 19 Jul 07
I NEVER THOUGHT THEY WILL TAKE IT SERIOUS
A few years ago while pointing out how illogical
"Protective
Filters"
were on an internet board, I mentioned that since the camera
body was just as
likely to be stuck by a meteorite from space as the lens, users
of
"Protective Filters" should do the next logical thing
and in addition
to going about in safety goggles and body armour to protect
their persons, they
should also stick their cameras in underwater housings for
protection.
It seems someone read that and thought "there is
money to be made here" and has come up with "CAMERA
ARMOR".
|
|
by Dayo at 04:59 GMT - Fri 01 Jun 07
Has Adobe Created Just Yet Another RAW Format?
After converting my Minolta MRW library to DNG, I discovered to
my horror that I was actually limiting my choices. Instead of improving
my options, DNG was restricting them!!!
The only way I was going to regain what i had lost, was to embed the MRW file
into the DNG file so that the apps could access the MRW file for the
conversion which left me thinking "what's the point?"
|
|
|
Pages: [1] |
