Photo Mish Mash ep 81 : New Drone Regulations, CES Predicions, Future of APS-C


Win Sony a7iii GIVEAWAY LIVE NOW ➨ My Recommended Gear: Get Awesome Music for your videos: …


  1. Have a look at this link to a live bootable CD iso that is useful for digital photography workflows. Based on Tahrpup64 – a mini Linux version. Contains Darktable for RAW file manipulation plus UFRW plus the Gimp as well as other very useful graphics stuff included in the Tahrpup Ubuntu compatible OS.


    Direct download link:!hJVD0IIK!Yvf1RJs2evEPwlIrW_16TWh0zZYRB3VaeSxeYHKASs0

  2. According to this Priest friend of Leo Laporte's,
    the FAA is playing the "Color-of-Law" card which means they can create statutory mumbo-jumbo like advisories and "directives", but they can not enforce them…not simply because of the overwhelming logistics involved…but because they CAN'T, they just want you to 'think' they can, which of course means they have no Jurisdiction at Law.

  3. First of all I totally against subscription. I think Adobe charged to much money for their software back in the days before software subscription. Best example is Photoshop Elements. It was just around 1/10th of the price of full blown Photoshop.

  4. Stop running with my best drone…you'll poke your eye out.

    Does anyone know exact details about the Jurisdiction Issues???
    My hearsay is:
    The FAA can't make Laws or lay mandates, all they can do is make announcements that other agencies (doj ?) enforce based on whether the drone is high enough to intrude into already regulated altitudes and air space, or if actual damage to persons or property has occurred. I picked that up from TWiT, so take it with a grain of salt!

  5. Hey toby, when you said to not look too close because you're not that pretty, I hope you weren't referring to Christina as well because she's gorgeous! lol. Christina, have you ever considered modeling?!

  6. I'm sorry, but I disagree with Christina this time on the topic that the Creative Cloud is cheaper than buying the whole software at once. Here's why.

    Let's suppose that a photography career can hold up to 40 years. Usually there have been big paid updates of any software every couple of years on average. That makes about 20 updates in the whole career. For someone who just uses Lightroom, which with its new features available also on its stand alone version, the need for a software as Photoshop is really limited to some very specific people. Also, there are other softwares at a much lower price that can do the composites with great results. So it's reasonable that anyone who is starting now a career as a local photographer, Lightroom is more than enough for a long time. At the current value of Lightroom 6 which is $149, if you add other 20 updates (which usually are at around $80, and you can update at this price also if you have a lower version of the software), in your whole life as a working photographer, you'd spend 1,749 dollars. In well 40 years. With the current price of creative cloud of 12.19 dollars/month, for the same time period (and assuming they keep it "per month" and not for every 4 weeks, which is a month only if that month is February), that would total an outstanding and astonish price of 5,851.2 dollars. A good 4,102.2 dollars difference, that would yield you a super nice 300mm f/2.8 lens, and some spare change too in some cases. Here's the first tangible difference on why the licensing mode is not cheaper, unless the subscription for just Lightroom would cost less than 3.65 dollars/month, and if we split the current Creative Cloud price in half, one for each software, that is about 6.095 dollars per month for each Lightroom and Photoshop.

    The second is the fact that Adobe has increased profit. Now, what I get is that Adobe has seen for 25 years (since Photoshop), lots of photographers making big money with their products, and then a Person in Adobe said "Hey, we want a portion of that money too, because you're using our software" "but I paid for it in advance", "We don't care, we won't a portion of that money you make, just because we want it". Imagine you guys, Christina and Toby, asking your local couple that have been in love for years, that wants you to shoot their precious moments, telling them yes, but with the condition that for every month they have an image you took on their home computer, a fee for using it, otherwise it cannot be shared or printed or anything else. That couple I think would be left in frustration and without an image. While you have lost a client, because they could not afford to pay for their moment for all their life: there's already the mortgage for their home to pay for.

    Another important aspect is that not every professional actually updates right after a new update is available. In my field, aerospace engineering, I've seen local industries still running on Windows XP, yes you read that right, Windows XP. What does that mean? That if a software is already expensive enough for the plant, in this case a photographer (not one that his/her starting price for ANYTHING is above the thousands of dollars, but a more modest one), but that version works perfectly for what they do, they unlikely will upgrade at every new version that comes out. We could easily assume that they would update alternatively at any new update. This drastically reduces the amount of times they need to spend the extra money for software to just 10 times over the course of 40 years. So the total cost just for Lightroom, for that single photographer, pretty local, with prices affordable to the couple above, and that is willing to make the right amount of money for their work, without sucking blood on their customers, would just be 949 dollars, leaving in his/her bank, compared to what he/she would pay for the Creative Cloud, well 4,902.2 dollars. Which can be invested in a great studio set-up, which is far better for his/her photography than any kind of software is on the market right now.

    What is really lacking from Adobe is choice: there's only the creative cloud, or the standalone Lightroom, which most likely will be the last version of it. Sure there's Photoshop Elements, but user interface and lack of external information from other photographers (such as you guys: you did a series of videos on Lightroom, not Photoshop Elements) I think keep people away from it. In my personal opinion what they should make is a toned down software, with almost the same user interface, so it can be relatable, but available for several kinds of people, just like it is for any camera manufacturer: for example the 70D is comparable to what the 5DMkII was, but as user interface, placement of buttons, names of them, is equal in time and models. Imagine if cameras manufacturer would begin to ask a portion of all the jobs you have done as well. I hear the counter-argument: but there are other benefits, such as Lightroom Mobile, or whatever else. But I answer: does someone who is starting as a photographer, and doesn't want to make it a multi-thousand dollar job, have to pay the same price as the elite? I don't think so. And fortunately there are already other options that help in this direction.

  7. Great work as always. Lumoid is only in US , we´ll have to wait here in Spain. I have a question for you. I´d like to get a micro lens but I don´t know if Nikkor 105 F4 could be a good option to my D7100 for 150 Euros.What would you do? Thank you for your dedication.

  8. Like Dom Bower said in his latest video, registering your drone is in no way going to make you better at flying it or less likely to cause an accident. Sure this is only a step in what I assume is forthcoming stricter control but it doesn't really do much as yet

  9. Not one Pentax product at Lumoid. Yeah I know Nikon and Canon are the biggies but c'mon, they have one of those light cameras and some Panasonic but no Pentax.

    I have not been able to locate an actual camera store any where near me (St Petersburg, FL) and would like to get my hands on a K-S2.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here