Jump to content

Woad V.

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Woad V.

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
    http://Suspended for the time-being
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Jabber
  • Skype
    Open to requests.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    United Kingdom
  • Interests
    Personal: Dogs; Pubs; Countryside; BBC Radio 4// Social Sciences: Politics; Economics; // Arts: Visual (esp. Photo-Art); Literature (esp. Poetry); Music (Listening); Performing (Others performing, that is!) (esp Drama).

Recent Profile Visitors

681 profile views
  1. Woad V.


    Hi InfoCentral, A couple of points which may help: (i) I am not a dude, to the best of my knowledge. (ii) It is rare income is generated without expenditure. "One has to speculate to accumulate," is the old saying. Thus, one has to buy cameras, lenses, computing power and so on before one can make a product for sale. Some brilliant and lucky people manage to make a lot of money from nothing but most who try fail. Toodle pip.
  2. Woad V.


    Hi InfoCentral, And there are people with a few hundred quid; people with a tenner and people who are paupers. And then people with large debts - probably owed to or spent with rich billionaires. Not everyone has money to freely spend. That goes for small firms, too. Plus, the best is not always the most expensive and vice-versa. And then there is opportunity cost (an economics' concept - simply means that whatever we spend on something means the lost opportunity to spend it another way - more precisely the next-best alternative way from one's POV). My opportunity cost is I want a specific camera but spending on cars and computers sends that further into the future. But I'm lucky; I have a camera which works and, by the time I can afford my target camera (Canon Eos 80D) Canon may well have marketed the 90D; people will be trading-up and selling their old 80Ds at reduced rates. Well, I hope so anyway. Toodle pip.
  3. Woad V.


    Hi Scungio, good to meet you, my fabulously rich co-participant. :) But if one cannot afford the up-front costs to start with, what then? Today I bought an upgrade to my computer stable - £450. That was very expensive to me. Problem is, it is second-hand - as all my PCs, bar two, have been (my first one ever - a 286 model bought in medieval times and one I built myself - try building an Apple yourself!). Now, being second-hand, it will finish its days, as all my computers do, in a dark corner of my study - far too old for anyone to want; forlorn, with no operating system (as I always remove hard discs - always physically destroy those - Google do and I trust them on this). So no second-hand retail value for me. Heck, this latest PC just cost me (and you will not believe this but true it be) £100* more than the most recent car I bought - which has just died but did 2.5 years' excellent service. No resale value in that, either. (* A Mercedes A-Class sold "as spares or repair" to me for £350 but was running; I drove it away and it has managed three MoTs since then - UK tests of something-like roadworthyness). I digress. I agree that many Apple users regard Android's diversity as problematic - and there are some truths in that. But it is also its strength. I want to buy other brands of cars than just Mercedes - I also have a Jaguar and have had thirteen Volvos. Variety is the spice of driving - or hard-driving. :) Actually, I blame Serif for my financial disaster (spending £450 is a financial disaster). My existing PCs were insufficiently powered to run Affinity well and certainly struggled with Affinity and ACDSee simultaneously open. And Topaz simply refused to run. New PC (well used PC) hopefully arrives next week and should boot donkeys, as I believe the expression is in America. Then we'll be motoring! Damn - not so, my cheap car having packed-up. C'est la thingy. Toodle pip.
  4. Woad V.


    Ah, thanks Patrick. Appreciated.
  5. Woad V.

    Affinity Photo pdf manual for your enjoyment.

    ve2cjw, Hi, Excellent work - how very kind of you. Thank you so very much. Really appreciated.
  6. Woad V.


    Hi R C-R, thanks for your reply, Yes, undoubtedly, Apple do have an ecosystem - which is much easier and better achieved by keeping most aspects in-house. I would argue that neither Windows's PCs nor Android-powered technology has such an ecosystem. Not willing and / or unable to pay. (Economics: demand is the ability and willingness to pay for something). I would not have been able to afford to take the Apple ride over the years. I did first use them - with 5.5" floppy discs - at teacher training college. I bought my first CBM Commodore 16 shortly after. I have bought a lot of computing power over the years - it has cost enough as it is! Would I have jumped on the Apple ride if I could have afforded it, all those years ago? Maybe I would - I was designing (as well as teaching) and almost all designers were going Apple. As I said, it is how I discovered Serif, which only made software for PCs. Rather ironic, really. Apropos the viable choice - completely agree. Actually, that was my whole central point: it would be good if Serif somehow were able to engineer Affinity for Android devices, to extend choice. Well, that put the World to right. :) Toodle pip.
  7. Woad V.


    Thanks InfoCentral and IanSG. Hi both and everyone, I am sure tech spec is easily available but my later point was arguing that (i) more people are using smartphones as cameras and (ii) the tech of those devices is zooming in improvements. I have never understood Apple fans' insistence that their devices are superior to, firstly, Windows, then Android (though, of course Apple proceeded Android and good Windows PCs). I know Apple make brilliantly-designed equipment, which looks very pretty, has traditionally been easier to use and integrates extremely well within the Apple ecosystem. But Apple does have disadvantages: Two are: price and the tight grip on outsiders' software (even though Android might suffer with some poorer software, I think fierce competition is, generally, good). Now that latter point (well both, actually, extends to hardware as well as software. Apple are developing their next generations of hardware - sometimes with the help of outside firms. But everyone can work towards the next generations of Android and PCs. Some will fail. But some will succeed and that open approach to hardware (and software) development is what drives the non-Apple sectors so well. There are, indeed, some low-powered, poor Android devices out there - and some middling - and, of course, some high-end. Octacore CPUs and 3GB base memory (before overall RAM) came to Android a long time ago. And tablets tend to be even more powerful (though not always). So I do not think Apple have a monopoly on good high-end tech. In fact, I think that, in the long-run, they will have to become more open or wither. I must admit, that is taking longer than I expected but only because an excellent but expensive range is bolstered by being a brand with a big, adoring fan base. So, yes, Apple devices are excellent but they are far from having a monopoly on such excellence. And look at the market penetrations from those pie charts. Toodle pip (in a non-Apple sort of way). PS: MBd (we cross-posted) - you are again, treating Android as a monolith, as is Apple. Neither it nor PCs are. There are many developers and producers out there. Yes Google and Microsoft do make the Operating Systems but they are caned by the device makers when they have it wrong. Some Android devices are bloated - as has been Windows - but improvements are always being made. Apple have much right but they do not have that monopoly good tech. To say "Android burns resources" has been true of some devices and some releases of Android OS. But many Android devices are very fast and things continue to improve (at Apple, too, of course). On a personal note, I tend to buy the "inexpensive" (in comparison) Chinese 'phones. Samsung are too expensive, not spectacular and I don't want an indoor bonfire. (Sorry, joking - all LiOn batteries are vulnerable). But those Chinese firms are zipping along in their tech development. My current 'phone is an Elephone and it is very fast - and, yes, I "paint" on it and write on it and have tried photograph correction on it - but I prefer sitting at my PC for that, with my 27" and 50" screens to see changes on. Mobile screens are too small for my taste. PPS if anyone wants a new mobile, do look at those Chinese brands - various on-line tech web-mags now do reviews and comparisons specifically of the Chinese offerings. I love my Elephone P9000 but I might upgrade in a while. Then again, since it does all I ask and still offers a blistering speed, I might just stick. It cost me £200 about eighteen months-plus ago (on Ebay) and it is on a SIM-only deal with Tesco (Sorry, UK only) (which frequently wins in customer surveys and piggy-backs on O2) for £7.50 pcm. Just saying, if anyone wants good value...
  8. Woad V.


    Hi MBd Point taken. Though tomorrow's professionals may well be today's smartphone photographers (remember, some websites only accept images shot by smartphones). Thus, the top-level of photography with such devices is far higher than ever before. Mike Browne, the You Tube famed professional photographer, has shown some amazing images shot with smartphones. Axiomatically, I am thinking of artistic professionals rather than (say) product photographers. However, there is potential for wedding photography, especially as the 28mm (?) focal length is improved upon by smartphone manufacturers. I freely admit, I am pretty poor at taking good smartphone photographs but many youngsters are very good. I think the time is right to realise the enormous potential of these devices for high-end enthusiasts and some professional applications. As a side note, much of the research money has gone into smartphone cameras, rather than other types; they have improved quickly and may well continue so to do. Tony Northrup (in a You Tube video) argues that the consumer camera is dead. So tomorrow's professionals will have to come from smartphone photographers. Entice them early with software and they may well remain with it. Apropos your PS - great for Apple users but won't help Android ones - which was my target-market argument. Cheers.
  9. Woad V.


    Hi all, I appreciate R&D is vastly expensive; that Android is far less homogeneous than Apple (and all the sub-points above). I do not like Apple - never have used in in many years as a designer and photographer. I have always been the exception to all the users who embraced Apple. Indeed, that is why I chose to use Serif from Page+ "1" - because it operated on Windows. I do not wish to suggest a strategy which would bankrupt Serif. I cherish the firm, their products and their history and feel for their staff. Serif must take sensible business decisions. Google's Android (which I use extensively, with Windows desktop machines too) is vast though and I would have thought some acknowledgement of this might be in Serif's best interests. Perhaps developing full-scale Affinity for Android now is not sensible. Fair enough. But what about developing an Android "app" (programme to me) which would be able to link Android to Affinity Windows? (I am assuming Apple users mainly only use Apple). This app could be lowish tech - ie very limited in scope. Perhaps something to tweak smartphone / table shot images within the shooting device; something to facilitate the interchange-information of images from Android to PC; something to smooth the path of photographs and images between the two platforms. Now, true, all this can be done with other apps. But, offering a programme to keep images, from shooting to high-level processing (and, maybe, back to the device) within Affinity's ecosystem, might encourage purchases by other people. And it would enable through-put much smoother for Windows's Affinity users who also use Android. It would also start to afford Serif's developers a better understanding of Android, should they wish to further Affinity's presence in the future. Just a thought. Toodle Pip. (Damn! did that sound like an Apple reference?)
  10. Woad V.

    Introduce Yourself

    Welcome Jarek and all those who have recently joined. (That includes me). I love the way in which you apologise for your English - by using perfectly good English, when most native English speakers - certainly including me - are utterly useless at any other language. Even useless at English sometimes! Hope you like it here.
  11. Not a bit of it - blue, remember, the Doctor's colour space and time. BTW, you youngster! I really (honestly) was behind the sofa for the very first episode of Dr Who in 1963. Junk yards for me, every time.
  12. :) Good point; cleverly rendered. Though we don't actually know the Doctor's name methinks. Then again, it's always Tom Baker for me and I Proclaim David Tennant is a strong second. One small step for a man... Five Hundred miles for that Doctor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW1gu8Lv8Fk (By the way, spot James Bond (Timothy Dalton) as a Time Lord) Did I digress there? Sorry my navigation circuits are unreliable - shall have to reverse the neutron-flow. Must go to feed K9. Cheerio.
  13. Good evening everyone - or whatever time 'tis where you reside. See: Time And Relative Dimension In Space. Who was The Doctor who said that I wonder? And the same with colour-space - so much seems relative. Quite right, Sir. I did reference a video about this in another post in this thread, should anyone want a good head-banging session. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKX08oOTMkk NB That You Tube page has many other videos on this topic, too. :D As in when I howl at a Blue Moon? Could be, yup. "I never felt more like singin' the blues..." (Some Guy). And, of course, the Doctor's TARDIS is blue, after all. Just to return to toltec for a moment. It is a good point, I guess, that we may not appreciate incremental improvements and attempts to perfect things. (Especially as our eyes age). But, then again, we happily put-up with typed letters (remember letters?) before word processors were available; with crackly cats' whiskers before transistors and chips and digital radio; with crackly LPs before CDs (yup I know some like LPs for nostalgia / warmth but I prefer to hear the track as intended - and now I can). So we do not necessarily appreciate what we are missing until we see something better: colour tv; HD tv; 4K tv (let's just ignore 3d tv for now). So thanks to all your your help and fascinating debate. Good not to be a pale soul in the photosphere wilderness, wondering. Or, put another way, "You saw me standing alone Without a dream in my heart Without a love of my own Blue moon" Or something like that. Hey, who mentioned Alien?
  14. This is a fascinating discussion; thank you all hitherto. I posted simply asking for instructions as to how to implement Adobe RGB on Affinity-Photo but have been fascinated and instructed by so much more from your replies. My understandings (correctly or not so), prior to this discussion were: (i) Colour-Spaces are a digital way of determining the range (gamut) of colours available with various technologies. (ii) The largest colour-space known is a human's good eye-sight, which technology has not yet emulated. (iii) Each colour-space is a sub-set of another, though there may be a lower colour-space oozing from the boundary of a supposedly wider one. (iv) In descending order of scope, the major colour-spaces are: ProPhoto (Can be digitally specified but is unviewable by any current technology, screen nor printing); Adobe RGB (High-end Printing, some high-end screens); sRGB (screens); CMYK (General Printing). (v) It is best to work in the largest colour-space possible - ie ProPhoto, then de-scale to the required lower gamut, depending on what output is required. That way, all options are kept open and no available colours are lost during editing / processing. (vi) However, since the wider the colour-space, the larger the file, why not just work in Adobe RGB - the largest reproducible colour-space? (NB: V and Vi are counter-arguments.) Consequent to this discussion, I am somewhat persuaded the work in ProPhoto - perhaps in the hope that one day technology will be able to reproduce it. I use a massive amount of hard disc space anyway and I am only thinking of those, relatively few, files on which I am working - not the zillions of photographs I never process. I do take the point of those (thank you Fixx and toltec) who argue that visible differences are minute - indeed, they may not be visible at all. And, intellectually, you have a good point. I guess I just post-process relatively so few files that I might as well treat those with the luxury process "just in case". Yes, I may be wasting disc space but, otherwise, I do not think I have much to lose. Apropos printing firms - I do confuse which technology they use. All I know is the ones who have done work for me use big Epson machines which look like wall-paper dispensers, on large metal cradles and use several ink cartridges - ten-plus? I seem to recall - very impressive and expensive anyway - several £ thousand apparently. And they do ask for Adobe colour-space input and some specific paper profile (varies depending which paper I select). Confuses the heck out of me but, with their help and indulgence of my ignorance and confusion, we have some fab results. But I am not in a position to judge their knowledge - I just realise it is far superior to mine and I rely on examples and testimonies for guidance. Toltec - thank you for those extra details (eg green value) - very interesting and much appreciated. Fixx, thanks again :) In the blackness of space maybe no one can hear you scream but in the confusion of colour-space, well...
  15. Hi Nolen, I use three monitors (the one attached to the laptop is designated 2 and t'others are designated 1 and show the same image as each other - which is different from Monitor 1). Yet I do not have the problem which you do - so I doubt it is that. Have you checked your monitor's own controls (buttons or dials on the side)? Sometimes re-booting those - as opposed to an electrical power re-boot - works. I take it nothing magnetic etc has been placed adjacent to your screen? Doesn't have the same problems as with CRTs but can be a factor in any electronics. I have not noticed any white balance problems with Affinity but you could uninstall it (ensure images etc are safely backed-up first) and re-install it. Good luck!

Important Information

These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.