UKBouldering.com
technical => photography => Topic started by: Bubba on June 21, 2006, 08:49:39 pm
-
Any of you Mac guys used this yet? Is it as good as it looks?
Can't wait for the Windoze version.
-
sadly not yet bubba. downloaded the beta a while back and sadly my ibook G4 didn't have enough Ram (requiring 512 at least to work).
Will be very much interested in hearing how you get on with it though. It's a bit of a shame really, as it looks like it could run on far less than photoshop cs 2 and Illustrator demand, perhaps not even requiring use of the scratch disk. Is it supposed to be much use as a tool for optomizing images for the web en masse do you know?
-
It would be perfect for mass operations such as that.
I like the fact that all it's editing is non-destructive. I've only watched the demo video, but it looks fantastic for digital photographers.
-
Lightroom is really, really good, and very easy to use as well. I use the free Beta version right now but I will buy it for sure when they release it properly.
Luminous landscape has a review http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/lightroom1.shtml
-
This is about the only time I've ever wanted a Mac. Still, windoze version will be out before long :)
-
It seems to be a little bit like “It's gonna be done by Saturday… Tuesday… next week… about a month… We're gonna bring it out when we're fuckin' ready, right?†for the windows version, no?
-
Yeah, they're being a big cagey with a date, but then it's better to wait for something that works rather than something that's just been rushed out to please the crowds.
I'll be putting any photo-processing on hold until it's out though...
-
...oh yeah. I forgot. Even if Lightroom is a good deal faster than Photoshop or Gimp for photoprocessing it's still a good deal slower (but better) then iPhoto. I have a rather slow computer, so for most of my post processing I still use iPhoto. Only the photos I really care about get the full Lightroom treatment...
-
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/ (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/)
All yours Bubbs. You didn't even have to weight a month. I think the site went mad yesterday but it might be calmer today...
-
Thanks man :)
Will go get now...
-
Finally got a machine that can actually run this... amazing! Makes editing shoots a pleasure, has totally transformed my workflow. Can anyone offer an opinion on how aperture measures up to it? Bearing in mind Lightroom is in its 2nd beta version, whilst Aperture is on V1.5 now or summat...
-
It's on beta 4 jb!
I've got it installed but haven't got round to really using it yet. Need to do so though because I've got a slew of holiday pics that need processing.
-
It's on beta 4 jb!
Isn't that only the 2nd windows version though? Rest assured I have the latest - its well brown.
-
someone wanna explain to me what this is and why i should be looking at it?
I'm currently using CS2 and bridge. will switching from one to the other fuck me over? does lightroom read and write jpeg comments/keywords in the same place a bridge?
-
Just download it and you'll see. There are no switching fuck-over issues to worry about, other than why you didn't do it earlier.
I ain't never touchin no Bridge again - what a crock of shit, last month I processed a shoot of 100 RAW files with that crap, a major chore.
-
well if you insist on shooting RAW.....
i've had a download and it looks OK. I'm not yet sold on this though - it seems to simplify soem things and yet overcomplicate others. I can't find any sharpening options in this other than a plain basic "sharpen" slider. Am I missing something? Also how do I do the equivalent of photoshops "proof colours" etc?
-
If that remains the case I doubt it will be marketed as a replacement for PS for serious photographers, perhaps just a browser
On a sidenote, is the photo browsing in the latest photoshop/lightroom any good? Last time I used Photoshop it was awful.
-
perhaps just a browser/RAW processor designed specifically for photographers
That's pretty much what it is, with bells on - Gruff, as I said to Dave, try it. It doesn't affect anything else so you can just delete it if you don't like it. If you're shooting RAW its the best program I've used by a mile, and I don't batch process much either. I found bridge very slow and cumbersome, both for browsing and for using the RAW processor, to the extent I only used it when I had to. Lightroom makes the same tasks a pleasure - I've already been through almost my whole library just playing with different images. Simple things like maximising screen space (I don't run big screen resolutions because I want to see individual pixels at 100%), swapping between 100% and screen size with single mouse clicks, and the having a filmstrip at the bottom of the screen so you can quickly compare different pics - it even gives you the same section if you are working at 100%. Its also remarkably intuitive - I haven't needed a manual at all yet, which is probably a good job as there isn't one yet. The Readme file also hints that I haven't scratched the surface of what its capable of...
The big difference though, is non-destructive editing - at any time (months later) you can go back to the file, see how you treated it, either do the same again, tweak or revert to the original. Yeah I suppose this was possible in the old system but again - try it, you'll like it.
No, its not a replacement for Photoshop - like the old system you export files to photoshop for finishing. I wouldn't be surprised if more sophisticated sharpening and cropping options make it into the final version, though I don't expect layer functionality - to an extent that is not required due to the non-destructive system.
is the photo browsing in the latest photoshop/lightroom any good?
This is pretty much the debate. The latest version has the Bridge browser, which I think is crap. Lightroom is still in the beta stage, calling it a replacement for bridge is selling it short though.
-
Dave, IMO not shooting in RAW is akin to getting your Woolies cheapo film developed in Max Spielman and throwing away the negs.
well its not really is it. its more like shooting a slide film that you like, sending it off to to be processed at a lab you trust and then sitll being able to tweak em afterwards if required. Shooting RAW is more like developing your own negatives in the bathroom with the windows boarded up.
RAW is fine if you wanna spend the time on it. I don't personally.
-
That's a crap analogy Dave. Its more like buying an SLR and then only shooting in program mode.
I don't shoot RAW all the time, far from it, jpeg is fine for a lot of stuff, but ignore it and you're missing a big part of digital's functionality. Having a Lightroom as a RAW converter has made a huge difference to my 'gumption factor' when shooting RAW though; if you are using Nikon's own I can imagine it seems more hassle than its worth.
-
From what I gather you may get better image quality when viewed at 100% (like a 1m wide print), but is this noticable in prints of the kind of size that anyone really prints? I don't know because I can't be arsed to expend the time and money to do it myself. I can't believe there is any visible difference in images viewed to fit a computer screen or internet. What other benefits are there? white balance etc can be altered in jpegs after the event as well as RAW, though when you've got a camera with a screen on the back you aught to be able to get it near enough at the time. And I know you have some highlight recovery potential with RAW, but again is this worth the hassle, given since your camera display shows you if your highlights have gone in the first instance. Are the benefits good enough to justify the extra time and filesize (i.e. card and memory buffers filing up twice as fast). Plus as the megapixel counts drift up and in-camera jpeg encoding get better and better, won't the jpeg losses and artefacting become less and less significant? From everything i've seen of raw its not convinced me yet. if i was doing massive prints or being paid to fuck around with photos then maybe. I'd be genuinley interested to know what you guys perceive as the benefits and how they outweigh the cons.
As lightbox stands at the moment it might be great for raw, but most of the things I would want to do I would still have to use photoshop for. I have got no real problem using Bridge, but then I'm not trying to use it as a raw converter. I will still fuck about with lightbox though with an open mind, see if they improve it. Not convinced i would pay money for it unless I did a lot of raw (as I'm sure it does make RAW stuff easier if you say it does JB), but i'd probably be happy to crib an illegal copy off someone else for a rainy day. ;)
-
Dave, have you ever deleted what was almost a good photo cos it didn't quite come out? Focus issues aside - too light, too dark, excessive contrast? With RAW you can generally save these and turn them into something usable. Shooting in 12 bit colour (RAW) rather than 8 bit (jpeg) also gives you massive benefits when tweaking photos in PS. With jpegs its obvious when you've gone too far and the colour starts to go wack, with RAW you get a lot more leeway.
-
cheers for the replies word.
I know that raw allows you to edit and salvage photoswithout "throwing away data", but again are the differences visible in print? JPG gives you a fair bit of leeway anyway, and when you can instantly review the images are we not better getting it right at the time. I know its not always possible, and in those situations maybe raw is better, I don’t know. if the main benefit of raw is in salvaging really badly exposed (several stops?) photos then I would say that's a pretty niche market, for specific situations rather than general use, since jpeg is fine for a lot of it.
If it’s a once in a lifetime event and you really need to recover photos a lot then raw is obvisouly the way to go. maybe we should just shoot raw when you can't be confident of nailing the exposure or in really difficult/impossible circumstances. I think it would be bad to always rely on raw rescuing though as routine. I want to keep as much as my photography happening out with the camera rather than sat in front of the computer at the moment, its more enjoyable. I got a dslr to help take better photos at the time, rather than for the ability to mess about after the event. I suppose its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, you pays your money you takes your choice etc etc.
I'm just worried that if I shot a lot of RAW I'd be causing myself a lot more work and expense for not much benefit. Are we just splitting hairs for the sake of it - if we're nitpicking a few pixels here and there would the time cost and effort not be better spent with a medium format camera and a scanner, and you get results with 10x the resolution of digital. will the small differences between raw and jpg going to pale into insignificance between the resolution of your camera now and the one you upgrade to in a few years? we could be worrying about nothing.
(Plus the cynic in me thinks that the photographic industry is pushing the RAW thing hard because they know full well to take advantage of it you're going to have to cough up for more $$$).
-
Dave - I'm not sure I buy the line that RAW is any more effort than shooting JPEG. Yes, you'll need to fork out for or steal a decent RAW converter. After that though the converter will "apply" default processing to the RAW file in terms of white balance, sharpness, tone curve etc. Most RAW converters, and LightRoom is no exception, allow you to customise this default; in other words you can get back to the JPEG you would have had with the click of a single button.
On the other hand, RAW gives you much more leeway with difficult shots, particularly ones where the White Balance or Exposure is difficult. And yes, quite a lot of shots would look much worse if you applied the same corrections to the JPEGs. Example: climber in shadow with a bright background? Expose for the highlights, and bring the shadows up in the RAW converter. Sure you can do this with JPEG but RAW gives you potential to recover much deeper shadow areas. RAW is the future. Accept it.
-
Its like many things Dave, you won't know what you're missing if you never had it.
-
Very good in-depth overview of Lightroom here (http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/lightroom1.shtml), highlighting many features I hadn't yet worked out. One interesting point is that he expects it to be priced very competitively against Apple's Aperture - if this is true it will be an absolute bargain, I might even buy it. :o Yowzer
-
Lightroom V1.1 released on Tuesday. Updated yesterday D-Y-N-A-M-I-T-E
Extended unsharp mask - now with FOUR controls and an genius alt-preview function that shows in B+W whats affected.
'Clarity' function - essentially local contrast enhancement. I'd prefer a radius and amount for this, but it works as it is.
Libraries now 'catalogues' - ie can be swapped between laptop and main easily.
I think its only about £120 now n'all. Bought mine as soon as it was released.
Good info site here (http://lightroom-news.com)
-
Hmmmm... I'm just about to (finally) move from doing most of our work photography from film to digital. I've been using iView Media Pro to catalogue everything up to now, which has been brilliant. I would like to carry on using this, together with CaptureOne Pro for the RAW conversions. Are any of you guys familar with this, or are you all totally sold on this Lightroom thing?
-
I've played with them, but Lightroom does the work of both, in a very nice interface. If you've already built up a big library in iView it might be a pain swapping though. Do you do everything in RAW?
-
I'm not sure yet. I expect I probably will do most of it in RAW. I've got a free copy of CaptureOne LE to test anyway, so I think I might have a play with that first.
I must admit that it's been quite a reluctant move, going from a Hasselblad Flexbody to a D200 with 35mm shift. I'm sure it'll all work out fine, but I am still a bit unsure. I certainly wasn't prepared to fork out for a digi back.
-
What do you do, photograph food? Flexbody sounds good, how wide a lens can you use on that? have been researching tilt lenses for my 645 but haven't found much. I guess the dof on the D-format will take care of loosing tilt then?
-
Furniture, and I don't really use the tilt very much. It's the shifting that's key, and although there's only 15mm it's still really useful. It's a bit like shooting architecture in minature. I use an 80mm and that works fine for what we need. Saying that, I would've prefered using 5x4 - you can always (or at least, could always) tell the difference, especially at A3.
-
Ahh, no probs then, plenty of shift lenses for Nikons. They'll not be much fun with the miserable little viewfinder though, not at all suited to slow, considered composition. I'm sure you'll miss the 'blad finder.
-
the finder with the flexbody is a pain actually. i used to use a prism finder, which you had to stand on a box to see down. i now use the ground glass screen and a loupe.
what i want to investigate is shooting tethered to my laptop - if i could do that straight into some kind of utility with a grid then it would make things quite a lot easier. i think capture used to let you do something similar, but not sure about the new version.
-
Ahh, no probs then, plenty of shift lenses for Nikons.
for the price of a nikon shift lens you could probably buy a 5x4 view camera, lens and a shit load of film.
-
£250 quid on ebay? Seems cheap to me. I suppose you could get a shit 5x4, with an even shitter lens. Even a decent one, new, though, is a bargain compared to a 'blad flexbody. None of which gets me any closer to your point, which was?
I think with the Nikon software you can control the camera from the computer, no doubt there will be a grid function available. It won't give you a live view though, if that's what your after it might be worth waiting, I'm sure its in the pipeline if only to keep up with Olympus and canon.
-
If you can get one (presumably the 35mm cos its the cheapest) that works for £250 then great, though i know the 28mm is more like £4/500 used (and about a grand new). yeah that money would likely only get you a shit view camera (like a crown graphic etc) with few movements, but since with the shift lenses you literally only get shift (no tilt/swing etc) then its probably comparable. even the shittest large format lenses are likely to be pretty fucking good, especially stopped down etc.
Controling the camera can be done from computer, as long as you accept you've got to stop down the tilt lenses manually as theres no aperture linkage, and depending on the camera you'll have to meter with the lens unshifted (you might be able to get around this with the D200). No idea about the grid.
-
my uncle has a couple of sinars, both a 4x5 and a 10x8, with a load of lenses, plus various other view cameras besides. that was where my plaubel came from too. but life is too short to start again with that lot. 10 years ago i would've done. (i spent my formative years in his darkroom, mixing cyanotype ingredients at age 7, spilling chemicals, revising the scheimpflug principle, jumpers for goalposts, etc)
i've just got the d200 in the post this morning, and according to the manual the 35mm PC lens i've got isn't compatible. but it seems to work alright. there goes my warranty.
-
I don't see why the 35mm PC lens would not be compatable. If so thats news to me. The D200 should work and meter with virtually every F-mount lens they've ever made from 1959 to today. Pre-AIS lenses might get slightly off with the exposure cos the stop-down lever may not be perfectly linear in relation to the aperture, but thats it as far as I know. You should be fine.
-
I don't think shift lenses generally have an automatic aperture. Usually they rely on manual stop-down metering, which would probably make them tick the incompatible box in the manual.
The D200 should work and meter with virtually every F-mount lens they've ever made from 1959 to today.
Are you on commission?
-
wow. i need to read more about photography.
-
I don't think shift lenses generally have an automatic aperture. Usually they rely on manual stop-down metering, which would probably make them tick the incompatible box in the manual.
The D200 should work and meter with virtually every F-mount lens they've ever made from 1959 to today.
Are you on commission?
i think that's it. the book says the certain older 35mm PC lenses are incompatible - i'm sure it's to do with the maunal stop down, as you say. i'm setting it all manually anyway, cos i prefer using a hand-held meter and measuring incident.
-
Are you on commission?
Aye, commission impossible. Perhaps a good problem name?
-
wow. i need to read more about photography.
In a similar vein, I spent a while this weekend trying to explain swing lenses to Sharpholds this weekend, ie to give the 'toy soldier' effect the american mags seem to like. After a while he said, 'oh, I know, you mean them babylens things?'
-
genius.
-
I have actually taken some RAW recently when doing landscape stuff to see if its worth the effort. not done any prints yet though to compare, which is the real test. so the jury is out. using it by default all the time still seems barmy to me - theres a time and a place (whihc i believe is what i originally said). On a side-note I have recently done some large-ish prints from 6mp jpegs (11"x14", chich is cropped so effectively 5mp), and they looked pretty fucking good, so I'd still have a few words for the jpeg bashers.
-
what lens you using these dayz d-dog?
-
lenses. the 10-20 spends a lot of time on the camera, as do the 50 and 24. long lens use more on holiday etc.
-
which 10-20 have you got?
I haven't used my 50 that much yet
-
the only one available! sigma. its fairly weapon.
-
Just seen this (http://www.marketworks.com/storefrontprofiles/processfeed.aspx?sfid=33071&i=234365953&mpid=4254&dfid=1). nearly wet myself and ordered one straight away but its gotta be a mistake.
Its clearly not 2.8 straight through at that price
-
it does say 1: 4-5.6 on the lens in that image.
-
it also says
It's exceptionally bright F2.8 maximum aperture, is available throughout the zoom range. This is perfect for low light photography or where total control of depth of field is required (F2.8-F32).
-
i'd be inclined to go with the text that sigma printed on the lens word.
-
I know. Shame.
Do you recon you could get them for false advertising? and then demand the widest f2.8 they have?
-
no. but i reckon you could. and i'll be right there with you buddy boy. i'm sure some bright spark can secrete the knowledge regarding trading standards etc.
-
Thats bollocks, it an f/4-5.6 lens, i can assure you. Any f/2.8 version would cost you probably double and you'd never use the extra stop anyway. If that is a legit site (the fact they don't even know how fast the lens is even though its written in big letters on 4 sides of the box would make me suspicious) then its a good price, i got mine for 250 bananas from mifsuds in what was described as "Mint-" condition. You'd want to make sure they weren't going to liquidate and fuck off after you bought though, cos those sigma lenses are notoriously bad for quality control. You want to make sure yours is sharp copy if you get one, test it out and shit. The soft copies are so-so, but the sharp copies and well sharp - mine is way sharper than the 18-70 kit lens, and that ain't bad in itself.
-
To get back to the original tangent - lens movements without large format - there's a good article on shift/tilt options for '35mm' in AP this week. Billed as a review of the Hartblei 35/2.8 super-rotator, but giving a good overview of other options. I've been considering the 45/3.5 for my Mamiya for a while (primarily for the tilt), so its encouraging to see some good reports of optical quality.
-
in the latest calumet catalogue they were pushing the canon tilt / shift lenses.
i nearly bought one of these a few years back:
(http://www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/plaubel69w_proshift/index.jpg)
http://www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/plaubel69w_proshift/index.html
by all accounts a brilliant camera. but i decided against it, and got a fuji gsw 690. which i used about 2 times and then sold...
-
Yeah, all those big rangefinders look good on paper, but I can't get into them at all. Hired a Mamiya 7 for a while but it just felt like a big compact. I think a proper SLR finder is a must. No tilt on any of those big rangefinders either, I'm a ll about tilt at the mo.
-
Yeah, all those big rangefinders look good on paper, but I can't get into them at all. Hired a Mamiya 7 for a while but it just felt like a big compact. I think a proper SLR finder is a must.
depends what you want it for i guess. the problem with the fuji was that it didn't have a built in meter, and i'd been spoilt that way before. i got a minolta spot meter an' everything, but it felt a bit like too much work. plus you really had to use it on a tripod to keep the horizon horizontal (assuming you're using it for landscapes). it would make a great camera for a geriatric landscape photographer used to 5x4 who wants something a bit lighter weight. 6x9 is a great format i reckon. i did a few wedding photos for a friend on a beach on iona with it, and the results were stunning.
i think that's the point of MF rangefinders though - they can be very convenient. if you're going to go for one MF system then an SLR is probably the safest option, but rangefinders are great for spontaneous stuff. i got very excited when i found out that martin parr used to use a plaubel like mine - it's a camera for quickly developing situations i suppose.
No tilt on any of those big rangefinders either, I'm a ll about tilt at the mo.
so you're not a swinger then?
-
lightroom 2 beta now available (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/)
can it get any better? certainly looks that way. official release some time off though.
-
New features in 2.0
1) Localized Corrections (AKA: Dodge and Burn) - If Lightroom 2 came out and this was the only new feature Id upgrade in a heartbeat. Localized Corrections is the non-destructive dodging and burning that weve all wanted for so long. But I have to say this - its so much more. It goes WAY beyond what I expected from dodging and burning in Lightroom (which is why its called Localize corrections and not just dodge and burn) and I think youre going to love it.
2) Better Photoshop Integration - Now you can open your files as Smart Objects, Merge to Panorama or even export straight to Photoshops HDR from Lightroom.
3) Post-crop vignetting - if youve ever tried to darken the edges of a cropped photo with the lens vignetting slider youll know it doesnt really work. Thats where the post-crop vignette comes in.
4) Multiple Monitor support - can you say Finally!?
5) Picture Packages in the print module.
6) Output Sharpening in the print module and it really works this time around. Ive seen tests compared to Lightroom 1 and the print sharpening is noticeably better.
7) Smart Collections - Collections were great in LR 1 but smart collections make using collections a lot easier.
8.) Printing directly to a JPEG file in the Print module. So if you send your photos off to a lab now you can save the files right from within Lightrooms Print module.
9) Suggested Keywords - Get this Lightroom will start suggesting keywords to you once you start keywording your photos. Its weird to explain so make sure you stop by NAPPs learning center to see it in action.
10) OK, Im going to give you two here. First theres a new filter panel in the Library module that makes getting to your photos easier and faster because its right there with your photos (instead of tucked away on the left side panels). Next, the Slideshow and Web modules both have Content panels as well as Collection panels. So now you can very quickly switch slideshows without having to jump back to the Library module and choose different photos.