ChrisLumix

Yes, as I said, Windows still reigns in the business sector, but that's arguably a diminishing sector with comparison to all other uses (desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones). Apple overtook Microsoft in revenues and profits a few years ago. As a generalisation that's true - Apple are primarily a hardware company, and up there with the best quality PC manufacturers. Unfortunately Windows also gets installed onto some of the most cheapo corner-cutting pieces of cr*p around. Having said that, Windows 7 and 8 have taken even more of the Mac's OS elegance. I had an HP netbook running Windows 7 and it was really rather pretty!

ROFL. You just did... I think you're out of date. Macs are the best-selling laptops and have been for quite a while now; when you add in the number of iPhone and iPad users, you've got a different world even from 5 years ago when what you said was probably a fact. Add into that, that Macs can install and run Windows either using Bootcamp, or in an emulator like Parallels, or in Wine. I'd say that using Macs in schools are probably a better training for the 'real world' these days, especially as OS X looks more and more what you find on iPhones & iPads. You're right about one thing - businesses still stick more to Windows than anyone else, but in the 'real world' computers are used for communications, internet browsing, social networking, email, etc and what you use in the office is less and less likely to reflect that.

The problem with downloadable photo magazines is that unlike print versions, they would include digital photos with infinite reproducability. When you see what is charged nowadays for so-called stock photographs, you can see why magazines would have a terrible time providing pictures.

I used many years ago to get Practical Photography, and read Amateur Photographer in the local library. The nearest thing now is getting dpreview's regular email newsletter.

I'm sure someone has? But I'm a bit lost as to what would be the point - after all, modern cameras (leaving digital aside for a moment) are as good as they've ever been, with exposure control, programs, shutter and lens technology, etc. The real point it seems to me, is that people might want to go back to film on occasion, in which case the film has to be developed. What would have been fascinating, assuming digital had never been invented, is if someone had taken the Polaroid principle to new levels where you could either develop film in-camera, or produce instant prints while also having the negative for better quality prints if the picture was worth keeping. In fact, continuing this monologue... wouldn't it be cool if they made a camera that married film and digital technologies? In other words, an SLR that when the mirror was raised revealed first a sensor that rapidly also rose to expose the film behind it. Or perhaps a sensor in the pentaprism that wrote a file to SD at the same instant that the film was exposed?I'm sure, if the demand was there, it should be possible without too much extra bulk being added (a sensor and an SD card wouldn't take up much space).

"Mamamiya here I go again, my my, how can I resist you"

Hello Paul. You've come to the right place for macro bugs! I'll look forward to seeing your landscapes sometime.

Good one!

Very tight, very dramatic!

ENQUIRIES

Funnily enough, I recently noticed these in iPhoto as soon as I applied the Sharpening to a particular picture, so in the end I left it unsharpened. But generally, I don't see them in either iPhoto or Photoshop. My own settings for Unsharp Mask are: Amount : 50% Radius : 0.5 pixels Threshold : default I find this gives a gentle subtle sharpen, that can be applied perhaps up to 4 times to a good image before it starts to degrade noticeably.

Surreal! On a related subject, I did an Image Search on my Mac yesterday, and one of its tricks is that it not only finds all pictures, it separately finds faces within pictures and gives you an enlargement of each one. It's mostly pretty good at identifying faces, but there one or two that were mystifying - e.g. shots of plants where try as I may, I could not see the supposed face.

Damn - there goes my "you might be a redneck if..." joke! Likewise, looking forward to seeing the mothraits.

Too right. I joined because LumixUserUK closed down due to spammers. But even so, that was too small in terms of active members. dpreview, on the other hand, is ridiculously large though they do of course have all the equipment tests and reviews as well. TIPF seems like an ideal size.

I'm not sure about this Dave? TIPF is consistently slower, where your post suggests it would vary quite a lot especially at busy times. But your last half sentence is true enough

I've probably plagued my bank and building soc's by forwarding on to them perfectly respectable emails, on the grounds that I think they may be spam! I just address them to "phishing@bank_name" and they usually get through (I've not had a 'Delivery failure' yet...)

I am on this topic to tell you that I've been contacted by a client of mine, who is the exiled Crown Prince of Namibia. He had to leave the country in a great hurry and needs to access £6m worth of funds in a Swiss bank account. However, in order to authorise this, we need to have an account into which these funds can be paid and cleared in Britain. That's where you come in. If we use your bank account, the funds will be paid in, but after clearance we will leave £500,000 Sterling in the account to cover any inconvenience to yourself. If you send me your full name, bank account sort code and account number, we will effect this transaction within the next 48 hours. Yours faithfully...

I suppose, given the sheer volume of media involved, it shouldn't be surprising that TIPF is the same speed as Facebook (which also has a lot of media). Most other forums I frequent don't have a huge amount of media so unsurprisingly they are quicker to load. I do find TIPF a bit slow, but not impossibly so. The particularly annoying thing is how long it takes to "Like" a post - why does something so minimal take so long? In Facebook it's instant.

I have the same iMac (2011) but in SysPrefs (Displays) it just says 1920x1080. Where did you get the 102ppi figure from? It's not in System Profiler either.

I think the magic figure is "pixels per inch", not the absolute resolutions you've quoted? Most displays have used 72 ppi forever but Apple's Retina display on the MacBook Pro 15" is 220 PPI. That's still a long way short of the kind of theoretical resolutions offered by large sensor DSLRs. If not printed, but viewed on a Retina display (which in theory the eye cannot see individual pixels on), then most of that resolution is - as you've said - wasted. But even on a good printer, anything more than 300 dpi is of only marginal detectability as far as the eye is concerned.

You're so right - "Xtra MP sell cameras". Yet it's the law of diminishing returns : it was true for the first years of digicams, but it's become progressively less so for the reasons you cited. Pro-level DSLRs need to forget the MP equation altogether. After all, you can now shoot at resolutions that produce poster sized prints unthinkable in the days of 35mm, when the ability to create 10x8 prints without loss of quality was the yardstick. WE DON'T NEED MORE RESOLUTION!! On the other hand, it still needs someone to convince the 'general public'. If one of the major brands brought out a camera with REDUCED MP but of such a quality that made the results unarguably stunning, and then that camera sold like hot cakes, it would convert the masses at a stroke and the MP argument would be over.

There are STILL people out there who think the more MP the better! It's like going to buy a bookcase and the assistant tells you "Oh, you should buy THIS one - it's got 7 shelves"; without knowing the width, height and depth of the shelves, it's pretty meaningless.

Here's one attempt to prove the point (the difficulty is to find a full face portrait that's fairly evenly lit both sides - after extensive search I've had to make do with this CD cover): The original is on the left. Despite feathering and some work with Levels, the join is pretty obvious in #2, much less so in #3. But even with this symmetrical face, the difference is subtly clear I think - #2 and #3 look more like twins than like exactly the same person.

Absolutely right - that's why I said that after doing that, Korky could "tweak to his heart's content". I also assumed - but was probably confusing this project with Fuji's antique plate collection - that it was an old photograph (antique). However, you're quite right - a half face flipped to give a whole face would, by itself with no further changes, look rather unnatural.