Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR 1.0  (Read 14977 times)
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 687


WWW
« Reply #40 on: August 18, 2006, 03:59:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Lightroom is using the Camera Raw pipeline, if "color or saturation" is "better" in DPP, I would argue you don't know how to set Camera Raw/Lightroom settings to adjust for the color & tone you want. A common problem I might add.

As far as "sharpness" that depends on the DPP settings and the Camera Raw settings. Camera Raw has a tendancy to product less "sharp" (but very sharpenable) and slightly noisier (unless you view @ 200% and fine-tune the luminance noise setting) at defaults. Canon also has a tendancy to really step on the low end of the tone curve to hide noise while Camera Raw produces flatter results that show the noise.

The demosaicing and sharpening/noise reduction is something Thomas wants to work on for the next major rev and with Micheal Jonsson from pixmantic as well as former Photoshop engineer Zalman Stern on board the Camera Raw team, there should be talent and people to make major improvements in Camera Raw/Lightroom raw processing.

As to the second part-using Canon's algorithm, no, Canon's stuff really doesn't preform all that well.  The only advantage that Canon has is using the proprietary metadata to do capture fixes that 3rd parties can't use unless they want to only use the Canon SDK and that would mean Camera Raw couldn't really use ANY of it's color/tone settings as currently designed, which just ain't gonna happen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff, Interesting response. I've used DPP 2.1 and at the defaults settings, I think that the conversions are better than LR, ACR and C1Pro. That said, DPP is akward to use compared to the others.

I subscribe to the LL Video Journal and I watched your recent intro and tutorial on LR many times over. I'm certain that LR and ACR can produce great results, otherwise, pros like you and Michael Reichman wouldn't use them.

Being an optomist, I'm thinking that I need more training on LR and ACR to get the best quality output. I love the workflow of LR and the print module is amazing. Any suggestions for basic settings and where to gain this knowledge through some education to produce the best conversions?

Thanks.
Bud James
« Last Edit: August 18, 2006, 04:01:31 AM by budjames » Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #41 on: August 18, 2006, 10:36:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Being an optomist, I'm thinking that I need more training on LR and ACR to get the best quality output. I love the workflow of LR and the print module is amazing. Any suggestions for basic settings and where to gain this knowledge through some education to produce the best conversions?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73755\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, they problem is that what we have is an application that is in the process of being developed on the fly...so, for authors and experts it's also pretty hard to be writting stuff about a moving target.

Scott Kelby has an eBook on Lightroom. Martin Evening also has his Adobe Lightroom Book that is being released as a "Rough Cut" meaning that you can get the book in stages as PDFs and then get the final book when it ships.

Michael and I have also completed a second Lightroom tutorial DVD that will be released pretty soon.

But the best thing, I think, is to just use Lightroom. Get the feel for what can be done and then be prepared for things to change as the next beta rolls around. I would not try to use it for real serious mission critical work and jobs-it is still beta ya know. But getting the real feel for the logic and design behind the app will help a lot.
Logged
Per Ofverbeck
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 139



WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 18, 2006, 01:38:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
....
But the best thing, I think, is to just use Lightroom. Get the feel for what can be done and then be prepared for things to change as the next beta rolls around. I would not try to use it for real serious mission critical work and jobs-it is still beta ya know. But getting the real feel for the logic and design behind the app will help a lot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, there´s the problem.  Personally, I like what I´ve seen of Lightroom a lot; at present I use ACR, and while ACR delivers, I wouldn´t miss it once LR is ready to take over.

Still, as long as LR can´t use my older ACR edits, and I can´t be sure even the next LR wlii be able to use edits I do now in LR, I simply cannot afford to dive right in.  The only thing I can do is to experiment a little when I have some spare time, and that´s not enough to really get the feel of it.

Read this as a simple statement of fact, not as critique.  But I´m sure feelings like these are what lie behind much of the impatience vented here.  Not very constructive, to be sure, but in a way they show that many of us are both willing and eager to actually USE LR on a day-to-day basis, and we´re counting the days to when we can do that.

A wild idea: I´ve looked into some of the sidecar files of images I´ve edited in both ACR and LR.  Both seem to write XML code in different parts of the sidecar, so couldn´t an enterprising and XML-speaking person write a simple "translation" script that edits an xmp file and makes the settings from one application as similar as possible to those of the other (I think of settings like colour balance, overall brightness, and the like)?  It wouldn´t go the whole way, but at least it would come closer to showing the files in a similar way, and since the raw´s themselves are unaffected, there´s not much risk involved.
Logged

Per Ofverbeck
My Webpage

"In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?"
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 687


WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 18, 2006, 03:42:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, they problem is that what we have is an application that is in the process of being developed on the fly...so, for authors and experts it's also pretty hard to be writting stuff about a moving target.

Scott Kelby has an eBook on Lightroom. Martin Evening also has his Adobe Lightroom Book that is being released as a "Rough Cut" meaning that you can get the book in stages as PDFs and then get the final book when it ships.

Michael and I have also completed a second Lightroom tutorial DVD that will be released pretty soon.

But the best thing, I think, is to just use Lightroom. Get the feel for what can be done and then be prepared for things to change as the next beta rolls around. I would not try to use it for real serious mission critical work and jobs-it is still beta ya know. But getting the real feel for the logic and design behind the app will help a lot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73779\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,
I've listened to all of the Jardine Podcasts numerous times over. They are great and very insiteful.

I am playing with LR as a serious photo amateur. I really like the workflow.

One issue that I have not seem much on is what happens when LR Shoots tab has months or years of shoots? How can you manage them?

Is there a provision to "archive" old shoots to remove from the menu but keep the metadata info in case I want to go back later and reprint an image massaged in LR you can add it back to LR and have all of the adjustments preserved?

I would like to be able to streamline my program useage to PS CS2, LR and perhaps BreezeBrower.

I also use ImagePrint 6.1 with my Epson R2400. Anyway (or need) to be able to print to this from LR in the future?

Thanks again for your input and continued inspiration.

Bud James
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458



WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 18, 2006, 04:39:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is there a provision to "archive" old shoots to remove from the menu but keep the metadata info in case I want to go back later and reprint an image massaged in LR you can add it back to LR and have all of the adjustments preserved?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bud

Create a collection/shoot called Archive and drag older collections/shoots into it.

John
Logged

budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 687


WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 20, 2006, 04:58:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bud

Create a collection/shoot called Archive and drag older collections/shoots into it.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73801\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John,
That makes sense. Good idea.

However, if you hard disk start filling up and you have to archive images by moving them to an external drive or network drive, then how does LR know where to find the images? I gather I would have to manually tell LR where the file is when I try to open it in LR?

Bud
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458



WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 20, 2006, 05:26:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
However, if your hard disk starts filling up and you have to archive images by moving them to an external drive or network drive, then how does LR know where to find the images? I gather I would have to manually tell LR where the file is when I try to open it in LR?

Bud

That file management area is where I feel Lightroom is currently weak. I'm 100% behind the program's database concept and am not suggesting a file browser tool, but I really think Lightroom needs a folder tree such as you get in cataloguing programs such as Portfolio and iView. These show where the database thinks files are, and let you reset the paths to the new location.

Careful what I say here, but right now in Beta 3 do thumbnails show any indication when a file has been moved?

One solution may be to rely on the OS, and maybe that's what the designers are doing.
I'm not a Mac user but I've heard its latest OS tells Lightroom where you've moved the files. But that's not in Windows XP, so the designers have some work to do (unless they're going to insist we upgrade to Vista if it has such OS level file locations).

A wacky alternative, which people may well need if they move thousands of files to a new drive (as I did yesterday), might be to update the database directly with SQL. You can connect to the database and should be able to do a search and replace on the file paths. Not that I'm proposing you do it - but it's what people are going to have to do if file management doesn't receive some attention.

John
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #47 on: August 20, 2006, 08:17:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I think you'll find that by the time LR 1.0 ships it will have a robust database capability, including the ability to export, import and merge databases. This is vital for when one comes back from a shoot or trip with a hard disk full of files, and need to merge it with a master database. Or, when a database exceeds to size of its current drive.

This is the current fatal flaw in Aperture, which I'm sure will be resolved once they complete their rewrite.

Michael
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 687


WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 20, 2006, 11:15:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think you'll find that by the time LR 1.0 ships it will have a robust database capability, including the ability to export, import and merge databases. This is vital for when one comes back from a shoot or trip with a hard disk full of files, and need to merge it with a master database. Or, when a database exceeds to size of its current drive.

This is the current fatal flaw in Aperture, which I'm sure will be resolved once they complete their rewrite.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael,

Today, I just watched again the Lightroom Tutorial that came with VJ 13. You and Jeff Schewe did a great job.

I'm using the PC version, beta3, so I'm looking forward to a tutorial on the product when it finally ships.

Using LR and gaining more experience with ACR, I've stopped using C1Pro. I was curious if you are now doing all of your RAW conversions in LR/ACR too or whether you still use C1Pro?

Kindly yours,
Bud James
North Wales, PA
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1252


« Reply #49 on: August 20, 2006, 11:17:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think you'll find that by the time LR 1.0 ships it will have a robust database capability, including the ability to export, import and merge databases. <snip>
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One thing that I've been curious about is not shuffling files around one system, but moving them back and forth between, say, a studio and a home machine. MichaEl, you have a country house as do I; and when I'm shooting out of there, I want to see what I've got on the local machine, and do some preliminary sorting, and when you're doing that, you automatically do a few adjustments and so on (or at least I do.) Then how do you move all that partially processed information to a completely different machine? Will that be addressed? I'd be happy to buy two LR programs, but its the getting back and forth that confuses me.

JC
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2458



WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 20, 2006, 11:19:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Common sense says it will be addressed.... Hm, let's wait and see.

John
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3640



WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 10, 2006, 03:38:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

Adobe makes very good usable software. I like it; in fact I use it 95% of the time.


However, the camera maker's software will beat Adobe on any individual file. And so it should be.
In particular, Canon have designed both their sensor and AA filter and the lenses, and therefore they can deconvolve the sharpness back into the image, and they know the noise profiles of their sensors.

The proof of this is in the DPP files. At my last batch of fashion show shoots here in Paris, I ran the pix through ACR/PS/CS and sent them off to the client who's happy. I also shot kids playing in front of the Eiffel tower thru the window of the show hall but THAT unique supersharp picture went through DPP into my portofolio, and will eventually land in a gallery.

Different horses for different courses. When I use ACR/CS I have a nice workflow and good imagery. When I use DPP I have a ghastly workflow and superb imagery.

Oh, and by the way, Jeff, telling people that if they are getting bad results it must be because they are intellectually challenged is not exactly diplomatic. But then Adobe don't do this themselves - Adobe usually listen carefully to their customers and steadily improve their product. I suggest you let them listen to us when we tell them that  we think image quality is still a tad better in some apps which don't really compete with them- they might fix it by just integrating a quick way to run an image through the Canon or Nikon code or application when it's really necessary ...

Edmund
 



Quote
Lightroom is using the Camera Raw pipeline, if "color or saturation" is "better" in DPP, I would argue you don't know how to set Camera Raw/Lightroom settings to adjust for the color & tone you want. A common problem I might add.

As far as "sharpness" that depends on the DPP settings and the Camera Raw settings. Camera Raw has a tendancy to product less "sharp" (but very sharpenable) and slightly noisier (unless you view @ 200% and fine-tune the luminance noise setting) at defaults. Canon also has a tendancy to really step on the low end of the tone curve to hide noise while Camera Raw produces flatter results that show the noise.

The demosaicing and sharpening/noise reduction is something Thomas wants to work on for the next major rev and with Micheal Jonsson from pixmantic as well as former Photoshop engineer Zalman Stern on board the Camera Raw team, there should be talent and people to make major improvements in Camera Raw/Lightroom raw processing.

As to the second part-using Canon's algorithm, no, Canon's stuff really doesn't preform all that well.  The only advantage that Canon has is using the proprietary metadata to do capture fixes that 3rd parties can't use unless they want to only use the Canon SDK and that would mean Camera Raw couldn't really use ANY of it's color/tone settings as currently designed, which just ain't gonna happen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=73737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: September 10, 2006, 03:49:47 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 10, 2006, 07:36:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally.. I couldnt agree more with the above post - which was why I originally noted that I prefered the conversions from DPP.

It may be that it is possible to achieve the same result in LR - however, it requires more work [at least for me anyway].

That said.. and re-iterating some of the above - in terms of workflow.. LR has it all over DPP.
Logged

budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 687


WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 11, 2006, 03:58:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,
You have noted several times now that the ACR/LR defaults can be tweaked to provide the snappier color and sharpness of Canon DPP's defaults.

How about showing us how to do that?

Thanks.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
James DeMoss
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 11, 2006, 08:01:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, most manufacters have "tweaked" thier programs to provide more saturation, more contrast and some even and some noise removal. These "tweaked" settings are pleasing to most consumers but when color accuracy is desired, this simply won't do.

I would recommend using some sort of camera calibration in LightRoom or PS to get a starting place that will provide some developing consistancy( tone wise) and then modify your image - adusting the black points and white points to your liking.

__

James


Quote
Jeff,
You have noted several times now that the ACR/LR defaults can be tweaked to provide the snappier color and sharpness of Canon DPP's defaults.

How about showing us how to do that?

Thanks.
Bud James
North Wales, PA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76037\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3640



WWW
« Reply #55 on: September 11, 2006, 09:21:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, most manufacters have "tweaked" thier programs to provide more saturation, more contrast and some even and some noise removal. These "tweaked" settings are pleasing to most consumers but when color accuracy is desired, this simply won't do.

I would recommend using some sort of camera calibration in LightRoom or PS to get a starting place that will provide some developing consistancy( tone wise) and then modify your image - adusting the black points and white points to your liking.

James

James, your advice is sound, but I'm afraid many of us here have run training courses or written about PS, and we do know the basics. In fact most here, including Jeff himself of course  , know substantially more than the basics.

Edmund
« Last Edit: September 11, 2006, 09:22:13 AM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
James DeMoss
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 11, 2006, 11:45:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I am not bold enough to challenge any one's credentials here and I would apologize if I came across as condescending in any way.    

__

James


Quote
James, your advice is sound, but I'm afraid many of us here have run training courses or written about PS, and we do know the basics. In fact most here, including Jeff himself of course  , know substantially more than the basics.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=76053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3640



WWW
« Reply #57 on: September 11, 2006, 02:36:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry, James, you blundered into an ongoing discussion about Adobe vs. the specialist software (DPP, Nikon Capture, maybe C1) which has been ongoing for about five years now. To a certain extent we use the other software as hares to make Adobe give us better stuff  .

Quote
I am not bold enough to challenge any one's credentials here and I would apologize if I came across as condescending in any way.   

__

James
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad