Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is Lightroom better in a fundamental way?  (Read 3344 times)
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« on: March 26, 2007, 03:02:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Many of us have been impressed with the promise that as RAW converters improve, we can get more from our RAW images with fresh conversions. At least, that's upermost in my mind.

The great flaw in digital imaging is dynamic range. In all other respects, digital imaging can trounce most film, and perhaps in all respects without exception, slide film.

I'm not so sure about negative color film and B&W. They still have the edge.

The problem is in the shoulder. Digital seems to have none. Film does.

In the following shot, which was perhaps overexposed at 1/750th at f8 and ISO 100, I've got irretrievably blown highlights.

It's one of my favourite (but flawed) images. When I come across a new product like lightroom, I test it with this image. Can it extract any more detail from those blown highlights?

With this image, I pulled out all the stops in the Lightroom preview. Maximum enhancement of shadows, maximum reduction of highlights etc.

It simply wouldn't open in PS. I got some error message. It opens fine in the other converters I have, whatever the adjustments.  I'm a bit puzzled because other images with less extreme adjustments open just fine in Lightroom.

Here's the image, converted in ACR 3.6. (Or is it 3.7, whatever.)

[attachment=2179:attachment]

ps. I should add, I've fudged the blown highlights in this rendition by cloning in a bit of detail. This is my print version. Printed straight, there's just plain paper white.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2007, 03:06:37 AM by Ray » Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2670



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2007, 03:30:07 AM »
ReplyReply

If you're approaching LR and evaluating its capabilities from a one-off or fine art mentality, then you're missing the point of the program. Try processing 2-300 pictures the way you used to do, changing the WB on each, maybe in groups of 20-30 as the lighting changed. Send them to the printer while making b&w's of them all, outputting them, generating a web gallery too. Then, when you're done, try doing the same with LR, and see how much more efficient it is. Some types of photographer need that sort of process. Others don't. Equally some tasks are going to need Photoshop pixel manipulation.

On this picture, maybe there's so little in the highlights that you're always going to be into cloning. Have you tried LR's cloning on them?

John
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2007, 03:35:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
.On this picture, maybe there's so little in the highlights that you're always going to be into cloning. Have you tried LR's cloning on them?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, I haven't. Even without cloning, the RAW file wouldn't open in PS. That's what disturbed me.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2670



WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2007, 03:42:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Try sending it from LR to PS - use the Edit With right click, or File > Export.

If LR imports the raw file, I am surprised Photoshop won't. Is it a new file type? LR contains the ACR4 engine, which is available in the PS CS3 beta, but you mention an earlier version.

John
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2007, 04:55:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Try sending it from LR to PS - use the Edit With right click, or File > Export.

If LR imports the raw file, I am surprised Photoshop won't. Is it a new file type? LR contains the ACR4 engine, which is available in the PS CS3 beta, but you mention an earlier version.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is a D60 6MB RAW file which has opened before in Lightroom. I was using it as a test image. Perhaps due to inexperience, I was not able to get a result as good as what I'm used to. I tried again using more extreme adjustments, but then it simply wouldn't open. No crashing of the system. Just a message saying lightroom could not open this image. Tried a few times of course. Guess there are still bugs.
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6737


« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2007, 05:13:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is a D60 6MB RAW file which has opened before in Lightroom. I was using it as a test image. Perhaps due to inexperience, I was not able to get a result as good as what I'm used to. I tried again using more extreme adjustments, but then it simply wouldn't open. No crashing of the system. Just a message saying lightroom could not open this image. Tried a few times of course. Guess there are still bugs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108709\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray,
How about converting your D60 file into a DNG using Adobe's DNG Converter and then import it back again in Lightroom?
Logged

Francois
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2007, 05:43:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray,
How about converting your D60 file into a DNG using Adobe's DNG Converter and then import it back again in Lightroom?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 

Yes, I could. But why should I? This image opens flawlessly in ACR and RSP whatever the settings. I'm not tied to using lightroom. It's an alternative RAW converter that for me is free because I bought RSP.
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6737


« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2007, 05:52:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, I could. But why should I? This image opens flawlessly in ACR and RSP whatever the settings. I'm not tied to using lightroom. It's an alternative RAW converter that for me is free because I bought RSP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108716\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, if you're happy with ACR and RSP then I don't see any reason to consider Lightroom to convert your RAW files (even if LR is free for you). I understand that the output of ACR (in PS CS3) and Lightroom will be identical.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2007, 06:10:47 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8854


« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2007, 08:19:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, if you're happy with ACR and RSP then I don't see any reason to consider Lightroom to convert your RAW files (even if LR is free for you). I understand that the output of ACR (in PS CS3) and Lightroom will be identical.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108717\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm never completley happy, but if what you say is true then I really shouldn't have to bother navigating a new interface. Right?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2670



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2007, 08:20:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Not for what you are trying to do.
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6737


« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2007, 08:40:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm never completley happy, but if what you say is true then I really shouldn't have to bother navigating a new interface. Right?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=108740\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're right! You don't need to spend time on LR if your goal is just to develop RAW files. In the last episode of Michael's LR tutorial he shows ACR 4 and it seems to share all the functionalities of LR. I've not used ACR 4 beta extensively but output is identical to LR - at least to my eyes.

It should make happy?  
Logged

Francois
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad