<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Playing with Aperture</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/</link>
	<description>apparently much happier in person</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:35:07 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: PatrickQG</title>
		<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82432</link>
		<dc:creator>PatrickQG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">59671597#comment-82432</guid>
		<description>I bought a copy of Aperture at the beginning of the year, and despite living with it on a 12&quot; PowerBook for 6 months, I&#039;ve never regretted the purchase. I&#039;m finding as I&#039;ve got to know my camera (a D50), and using it in manual mode 99% of the time, with Aperture I&#039;m getting much better results.

The switch to RAW is particularly great one - shooting to JPEG always felt slightly wrong to me, like I was throwing data away before I even got to see it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I bought a copy of Aperture at the beginning of the year, and despite living with it on a 12&#8243; PowerBook for 6 months, I&#8217;ve never regretted the purchase. I&#8217;m finding as I&#8217;ve got to know my camera (a D50), and using it in manual mode 99% of the time, with Aperture I&#8217;m getting much better results.</p>
<p>The switch to RAW is particularly great one &#8211; shooting to JPEG always felt slightly wrong to me, like I was throwing data away before I even got to see it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sami Khan</title>
		<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82442</link>
		<dc:creator>Sami Khan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">59671597#comment-82442</guid>
		<description>Little children getting their blemishes removed, what is the world coming to? Perhaps in the future we&#039;ll have glasses that remove blemishes and wrinkles from people&#039;s faces so everyone looks young. ;) Is that a good idea? As for becoming a photographer, hmm. I wonder how long that job is going to be around?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Little children getting their blemishes removed, what is the world coming to? Perhaps in the future we&#8217;ll have glasses that remove blemishes and wrinkles from people&#8217;s faces so everyone looks young. <img src='http://www.darcynorman.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' />  Is that a good idea? As for becoming a photographer, hmm. I wonder how long that job is going to be around?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dnorman</title>
		<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82445</link>
		<dc:creator>dnorman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">59671597#comment-82445</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s actually a camera that removes blemishes, even makes you look thinner, all in-camera. That&#039;s a bit over the top...

As for the job of &quot;photographer&quot; - it&#039;s been around for 150 years. I don&#039;t think universal access to cheap photography tools will change that. If anything, it might increase the appreciation of what it takes to take/make a good photo.

Everyone has a video camera, and the resulting accumulation of 50 trillion hours of birthday party shaky cam footage hasn&#039;t reduced the demand for real cameramen etc...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s actually a camera that removes blemishes, even makes you look thinner, all in-camera. That&#8217;s a bit over the top&#8230;</p>
<p>As for the job of &#8220;photographer&#8221; &#8211; it&#8217;s been around for 150 years. I don&#8217;t think universal access to cheap photography tools will change that. If anything, it might increase the appreciation of what it takes to take/make a good photo.</p>
<p>Everyone has a video camera, and the resulting accumulation of 50 trillion hours of birthday party shaky cam footage hasn&#8217;t reduced the demand for real cameramen etc&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sami Khan</title>
		<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82446</link>
		<dc:creator>Sami Khan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">59671597#comment-82446</guid>
		<description>I could go for the thinner. What I actually wonder about photography is not whether it&#039;s going away, but whether photographers are becoming ubiquitous...? Home videos can&#039;t become commercial videos, they don&#039;t have the budget... but photography is the photographer and the camera, that&#039;s is... The view doesn&#039;t cost anything. But I guess you have to have enough free time first to learn the craft, and then when you practice it you have to be paid enough to make a living... so that keeps the pay levels decent enough for those who choose to go in it... I guess its sort of a supply demand curve for work... If there is too much supply it causes a drop in the demand or the pay, and that causes people who can&#039;t afford the life style to leave. However a while back some freeland writer who wrote for mags including Rolling Stones was complaining about the fact that he was getting paid not a penny more than when he started and taking in inflation, quite a bit less.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I could go for the thinner. What I actually wonder about photography is not whether it&#8217;s going away, but whether photographers are becoming ubiquitous&#8230;? Home videos can&#8217;t become commercial videos, they don&#8217;t have the budget&#8230; but photography is the photographer and the camera, that&#8217;s is&#8230; The view doesn&#8217;t cost anything. But I guess you have to have enough free time first to learn the craft, and then when you practice it you have to be paid enough to make a living&#8230; so that keeps the pay levels decent enough for those who choose to go in it&#8230; I guess its sort of a supply demand curve for work&#8230; If there is too much supply it causes a drop in the demand or the pay, and that causes people who can&#8217;t afford the life style to leave. However a while back some freeland writer who wrote for mags including Rolling Stones was complaining about the fact that he was getting paid not a penny more than when he started and taking in inflation, quite a bit less.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dnorman</title>
		<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82447</link>
		<dc:creator>dnorman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">59671597#comment-82447</guid>
		<description>Photography died in the &#039;50s when cheap point-and-shoot cameras took off. Everyone could take a picture. Wait... It didn&#039;t die, it just got more common/popular...

but, yeah. I couldn&#039;t imagine actually making a living off of taking pictures. it&#039;d sure be cool, though...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Photography died in the &#8217;50s when cheap point-and-shoot cameras took off. Everyone could take a picture. Wait&#8230; It didn&#8217;t die, it just got more common/popular&#8230;</p>
<p>but, yeah. I couldn&#8217;t imagine actually making a living off of taking pictures. it&#8217;d sure be cool, though&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sami Khan</title>
		<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82448</link>
		<dc:creator>Sami Khan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">59671597#comment-82448</guid>
		<description>What I really mean is... I can not accept defeat... :P No seriously though, how about 3-D pictures?? When will 3-D holoscapes replace photography?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I really mean is&#8230; I can not accept defeat&#8230; <img src='http://www.darcynorman.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':P' class='wp-smiley' />  No seriously though, how about 3-D pictures?? When will 3-D holoscapes replace photography?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dnorman</title>
		<link>http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/09/29/playing-with-aperture/#comment-82449</link>
		<dc:creator>dnorman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">59671597#comment-82449</guid>
		<description>they might add to it, but I don&#039;t think they&#039;ll replace it. a simple 2D photograph is a powerful thing. daguerrotypes from the mid 1850&#039;s are as powerful (or moreso) than any 3D hologram, because they&#039;re a snapshot in time (literally and figuratively). It&#039;s not about technology, it&#039;s about story telling. As stuff gets invented, it just adds more ways to tell a story - but the old ways don&#039;t get forgotten, they get refined.

2D beats 3D in some areas, because it lets multiple viewers share the same perspective. With a 3D holograph, everyone sees something slightly different...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>they might add to it, but I don&#8217;t think they&#8217;ll replace it. a simple 2D photograph is a powerful thing. daguerrotypes from the mid 1850&#8217;s are as powerful (or moreso) than any 3D hologram, because they&#8217;re a snapshot in time (literally and figuratively). It&#8217;s not about technology, it&#8217;s about story telling. As stuff gets invented, it just adds more ways to tell a story &#8211; but the old ways don&#8217;t get forgotten, they get refined.</p>
<p>2D beats 3D in some areas, because it lets multiple viewers share the same perspective. With a 3D holograph, everyone sees something slightly different&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
