Gotta learn to carry a longer lens even for casual walk-arounds

On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 14:22:12 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 26 April 2020 01:18:49 UTC-4, David Taylor wrote:
On Apr 25, 2020, RichA wrote
(in ):

There used to be software that could tell you across hundreds of photos what focal lengths you most-used.

The program you seek is:

https://www.vandel.nl/

although I've not used it for a long time! It's free.


Thank you for not leaving me at the mercy of Adobe though some plug-in.

It looks like it's jpg only.

On Apr 26, 2020, RichA wrote
(in ):

On Saturday, 25 April 2020 19:39:40 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 25, 2020, RichA wrote
(in ):

On Saturday, 25 April 2020 14:30:26 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 25, 2020, RichA wrote
(in ):



There used to be software that could tell you across hundreds of photos what focal lengths you most-used.

There still is, it never went away, try Lightroom, or Bridge.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

I never liked Lightroom, the program I used was stand-alone.

You never liked Adobe anything, and Lightroom is stand-alone.

I think Abode stuff is bloated with uneeded crap. I shoot stills, I don't do video and I don't do abstract design stuff.

To clarify, I too shoot stills, and do not do video, and my personality does not lend its self to abstract design. That does not mean that I am not occasionally faced with an editing, or processing challenge which is best met with my working knowledge of Lightroom and/or Photoshop. Lightroom + Photoshop fills my stills photography needs.

When it comes to your claim of “uneeded crap� (sic), could you be specific with regard to just what that “uneeded crap� might be. I find that I do not share your particular anti-Adobe bias.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 26/04/2020 22:36, RichA wrote:
[]
Nice program, thanks. This is the result of a series of test shots using the first Nikon D810A (astro camera)and Nikon 200-500mm zoom lens in Canada:
https://pbase.com/andersonrm/image/170656554

Glad it's working for you. It reminds me that I tend to use lenses at
their extremes, so your 200-500 tends to be at 500, and I recall a 16-85
tended to be at 16! I've never checked my MFT 14-140, though.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 27/04/2020 9:21 am, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 25 April 2020 19:39:40 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 25, 2020, RichA wrote
(in ):

On Saturday, 25 April 2020 14:30:26 UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
On Apr 25, 2020, RichA wrote
(in ):



There used to be software that could tell you across hundreds of photos what focal lengths you most-used.

There still is, it never went away, try Lightroom, or Bridge.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

I never liked Lightroom, the program I used was stand-alone.

You never liked Adobe anything, and Lightroom is stand-alone.

I think Abode stuff is bloated with uneeded crap. I shoot stills, I don't do video and I don't do abstract design stuff.




I was initially put off Abode software because it took them so long to
acknowledge that (non-Apple) mice had developed right-buttons and that
they could be useful.

geoff

In article , geoff
wrote:

I never liked Lightroom, the program I used was stand-alone.

You never liked Adobe anything, and Lightroom is stand-alone.

I think Abode stuff is bloated with uneeded crap. I shoot stills, I
don't do video and I don't do abstract design stuff.


I was initially put off Abode software because it took them so long to
acknowledge that (non-Apple) mice had developed right-buttons and that
they could be useful.

of all the reasons to not like adobe software, that one is by far, the
most bizarre and completely nonsensical.

in particular, photoshop and lightroom were designed by artists and
photographers for other artists and photographers to be the most
efficient and productive tools. that means creating a user interface
that is efficient and intuitive, versus adding a contextual menu for no
valid reason.

also, the mac has supported multi-button mice since before windows
became popular and researched their effectiveness long before that. the
difference is that mac users have a choice of however many buttons they
wanted versus what was forced upon them.

On 28/04/2020 2:57 am, nospam wrote:
In article , geoff
wrote:

I never liked Lightroom, the program I used was stand-alone.

You never liked Adobe anything, and Lightroom is stand-alone.

I think Abode stuff is bloated with uneeded crap. I shoot stills, I
don't do video and I don't do abstract design stuff.


I was initially put off Abode software because it took them so long to
acknowledge that (non-Apple) mice had developed right-buttons and that
they could be useful.

of all the reasons to not like adobe software, that one is by far, the
most bizarre and completely nonsensical.

in particular, photoshop and lightroom were designed by artists and
photographers for other artists and photographers to be the most
efficient and productive tools. that means creating a user interface
that is efficient and intuitive, versus adding a contextual menu for no
valid reason.

also, the mac has supported multi-button mice since before windows
became popular and researched their effectiveness long before that. the
difference is that mac users have a choice of however many buttons they
wanted versus what was forced upon them.



Specifically I recall the current version of Pagemaker at the time not
having right-click functionality, whereas everything else in Windows did.

geoff

In article , geoff
wrote:

I never liked Lightroom, the program I used was stand-alone.

You never liked Adobe anything, and Lightroom is stand-alone.

I think Abode stuff is bloated with uneeded crap. I shoot stills, I
don't do video and I don't do abstract design stuff.


I was initially put off Abode software because it took them so long to
acknowledge that (non-Apple) mice had developed right-buttons and that
they could be useful.

of all the reasons to not like adobe software, that one is by far, the
most bizarre and completely nonsensical.

in particular, photoshop and lightroom were designed by artists and
photographers for other artists and photographers to be the most
efficient and productive tools. that means creating a user interface
that is efficient and intuitive, versus adding a contextual menu for no
valid reason.

also, the mac has supported multi-button mice since before windows
became popular and researched their effectiveness long before that. the
difference is that mac users have a choice of however many buttons they
wanted versus what was forced upon them.


Specifically I recall the current version of Pagemaker at the time not
having right-click functionality, whereas everything else in Windows did.

so what? that just means it was designed to not need a contextual menu,
which isn't always a right-click either.

adding a contextual menu for no good reason is a bad idea, and there
are plenty of user interface studies that show it's rarely a good idea
because it reduces productivity and increases error rates.

On 28/04/2020 11:16 am, nospam wrote:


so what? that just means it was designed to not need a contextual menu,
which isn't always a right-click either.

adding a contextual menu for no good reason is a bad idea, and there
are plenty of user interface studies that show it's rarely a good idea
because it reduces productivity and increases error rates.


Meanwhile, on Earth ....

geoff

In article , geoff
wrote:

so what? that just means it was designed to not need a contextual menu,
which isn't always a right-click either.

adding a contextual menu for no good reason is a bad idea, and there
are plenty of user interface studies that show it's rarely a good idea
because it reduces productivity and increases error rates.


Meanwhile, on Earth ....

non-answer, and completely missing the point.