![]() ![]() In fact, it would be nice to see histogram while culling but in Photo Supreme you can choose to see your photos with the option "show blown highlights", whick I think is very helpfull also.įor me you can't go wrong with Photo Supreme, as with DXO PL and Affinity Photo. I uso Photo Supreme and I am so far happy with it. I am hoping to reduce the tools in the workflow. It looks interesting but it will be one more tool in the workflow. Inexpensive and on sale for the next few days, Should be in every photographer's tool kit ![]() Black voters in Alabama won a victory at the Supreme Court Thursday with a narrow 5-4 ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts holding that state lawmakers violated the Voting Rights Act when they redrew Alabama’s congressional map after the 2020 census. You can rate photos in this app and your DAM should pick these up. 1 day ago &0183 &32 Brennan Center for Justice. It's the best tool for evaluating image quality as it is one of the few tools that allow you to view the raw histogram. It would be great if I don't have to use yet another tool like Photo Mechanic for that purpose.Ĭan't comment on the DAM but I would cull photos using FastRawViewer. I would like the ability to compare similar shots for the best one to keep and rest to delete. In addition, I would like to be able to cull the pictures as I download them from my camera in the same tool. I would like users of these two tools comment on them to help me with selection. I have spent quite a bit of time on forums and seems like Photo Supreme and iMatch are top two choices. Now I am looking for a DAM that is easy to learn, stable and not too expensive. I just bought DXO PL4 and Affinity Photo along with bunch of other software. Our test would still protect tech companies from a wide range of liability, but also incentivize those companies to monitor and mitigate the ways that their platforms encourage, facilitate, or exacerbate online harms.I am looking to move away from Lr/Ps. Rather than assume that a tech company is immune when a claim involves user content, EPIC argued that courts should instead ask whether a plaintiff’s claim could be brought against the user that created the content-or whether there was some proportion of harm that could only be ascribed to a tech company. Google, arguing that Section 230 does not permit tech companies to automatically escape liability whenever user content is involved. While these examples involve user content, tech companies play a role in mitigating or exacerbating harm in each case.ĮPIC filed an amicus brief in Gonzalez v. ![]() For example, an online platform’s advertising algorithms can discriminate against users of color and its content moderations algorithms can silence Black users while permitting hate speech and child sexual abuse material to remain. ![]() However, the Court’s decision to focus narrowly on the Anti-Terrorism Act in both cases ignores a variety of other ways that tech companies and their algorithms can facilitate harm. I expect biased answers here :-) but my initial impression is that imatch is the product that power users will love, and photo supreme is for those who are overwhelmed by imatch and don't need all the features. Without a plausible claim under the Act, the Supreme Court no longer had reason to decide whether Section 230 immunizes tech companies from liability for harms caused or facilitated by their recommendation algorithms.īy deciding both Gonzalez and Taamneh based on the feasibility of each plaintiff’s claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act rather than on Section 230 immunity grounds, the Supreme Court showed that tech companies can survive-and even win-cases without resorting to overbroad interpretations of Section 230. July 12, 2021, 08:49:22 PM Hello, In my search for a lightroom replacement it has come down to these two products. Taamneh-the Court found that the families of ISIS attack victims failed to allege that either tech company had knowingly assisted the terrorist group under the Anti-Terrorism Act. In a pair of decisions released today- Gonzalez v. The Supreme Court has declined to address whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law that encourages tech companies to moderate content on their platforms, immunizes companies like Google and Twitter from lawsuits alleging that their recommendation algorithms promoted terrorist activity. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |