 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / May 2007Why Do I need Lightroom?
I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to quickly view them. Then I use Photoshop to edit them. So somebody please tell me why I need Lightroom? I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on Friday given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time. So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't? > I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to > quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't? I down loaded the free trial of Lightroom and mostly I liked it. In most cases I could do everything in lightroom that I needed to get a final image ready for whatever, printing, putting on the web etc. I found the work flow a fair bit faster when I could do everything in lightroom compared to converting a film and editing it and then saving. In the end I deciding that whereas it was nice it was not worth the $200 for me, if I were a pro I would buy it without thinking. Scott >I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to > quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't? The RAW converter in CS3 is very similar to Lightroom.......same functions......so probably same software. Lightroom has some default settings you can choose from. They can be a good starting point. There are also a good tool to see "before" and "after" you made some modifications. I have not used the library functions, but some people think they are useful. There is a backup function also. What I like is that when you have imported some RAW images and start make modifications......you can just close down the program and start again later from where you closed down the program. Like in rawshooter you can mark you images and put them into groups. Rawshooter has the possibility to make raw conversion in batch. One should think Lightroom has the same function. It was very useful. I use Lightroom but have not looked for this function yet :-) Lightroom also have a very good history log so you are able to go back to a previous state. Also think the snapshot function is a function where you can store a current state of the image so you can go back quickly. So there are a number of small utilities which are nice to have. Yon can print directly from Lightroom.......never tried this. An expert user may come up with a lot more............ Max > I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to > quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm considering going to a NAPP Lightroom seminar in Atlanta on Friday > given by Scott Kelby and I need to know if it'll be worth my time. Only you can decide that; Scott is hard to take in doses of more than 20 minutes! Were I you, I'd download the app immediately and give it a spin; that way if you do go, you'll absorb that much more and maybe have an intelligent question or two, above of course, the 18 all ready intelligent questions you surely have. ;) > So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't? It's designed to be a photographer's tool, not a pixel editor. It makes importing, sorting, tagging and adjusting images easy, what with templates installed and ones you can make for batches. It is premised on shooting RAW, and then tweaking images in that format and then exporting as TIFF, JPEG and/or PSD files if they are needed for other. Templates are great to use here, also. It has a five module approach, but I barely look at the web interface nor slideshow. I've printed to an Epson 7800 with it, but most of my printing goes through PS, so I print from that. http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/ Does it do stuff PS cannot? I'm not fully sure, aside from being a Digital Photo Manager, but it does it differently, and much better for me than Bridge + PS.  Signaturejohn mcwilliams > I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to > quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't? Cost You some more money. Väinö Louekari > > I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to > > quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Väinö Louekari and save you time. I love it (last time I checked Photoshop cost 2-3 times more than Lightroom). Since I dont believe in heavy handed editing such as masks stamps and the likes, LR is perfect for me. It took me some time to decide between Light Room and Aperture, but LR I think is slightly easier to use and is about $50-$70 cheaper >I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to > quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't? I find that Lightroom is pretty much exactly what I want in a raw converter. The functionality is great. (C1 does a better job at minimizing color Moiré, and maybe extracting the most detail. Maybe. But is pricey if you need rotation, which I do.) The workflow is a bit nutty, and you do best if you submit to its view of the world, which involves allocating inordinate amounts of disk space for cached previews, and only looking at previews at 1:1 (100% pixels). It does image management. Rudely and intrusively. You WILL follow its model. Period. LR is painfully slow if you compare images in the Develop module at 1:1 (100% pixel view), which I tend to do. I'm not interested in images that aren't critically sharp at the pixel level, so I get nervous and look and the world grinds to a halt. And the print module has defeated me. Completely. For free, it was a good deal. For US$300? ACR + CS3 + C1 may make more sense. (I'm still on PS7 until next month.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to >> quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > cached previews, and only looking at previews at 1:1 (100% pixels). It does > image management. Rudely and intrusively. You WILL follow its model. Period. I didn't find it either nutty nor excessively rigid. I use both 1:1 previews and smaller sizes. I have my previews set to expire after 30 days. > LR is painfully slow if you compare images in the Develop module at 1:1 > (100% pixel view), which I tend to do. I'm not interested in images that > aren't critically sharp at the pixel level, so I get nervous and look and > the world grinds to a halt. And the print module has defeated me. > Completely. On my MacBookPro, images at full pixels are fast, but I tend to create the previews while I am reading usenet, for example. > For free, it was a good deal. For US$300? ACR + CS3 + C1 may make more > sense. (I'm still on PS7 until next month.) I'm a professional student (!) as well as photographer, so mine cost me $99. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to > quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't? It will manage your workflow. Granted, you do that already with Downloader and Breezebrowser, but Lightroom does manage to have a few features that those do not. It depends a little bit on what Kelby shows you. If he shows you the workflow aspects of Lightroom, you can see what it is for. Lightroom is there from image acquisition, either tethered or un-tethered, through organizing, rating, selecting, editing, publishing, and archiving your files. The whole point of view in Lightroom is workflow. Everything is labeled as a stage in workflow. You can do this in Aperture, but Aperture does not direct your workflow so overtly. It does not have separate screens for library and editing, for example. Nevertheless, it is the same sort of product. I tend to favor Aperture because of its cleaner look and simpler interface, but I like Lightroom a lot. The most recent updates of Aperture run as fast, if not faster, than Lightroom on an Intel processor. But the point is this: products like Lightroom and Aperture are popular because they fill a need -- a way to organize your work efficiently. If you are already well organized then you will find these programs can enhance that organization. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor On May 29, 4:04 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com> wrote: > It depends a little bit on what Kelby shows you. If he shows you the > workflow aspects of Lightroom, you can see what it is for. Lightroom is > there from image acquisition, either tethered or un-tethered, through > organizing, rating, selecting, editing, publishing, and archiving your > files. The whole point of view in Lightroom is workflow. It looks like that's the way it will be presented ... from the actual shoot to the print. Here are some details of the program for anyone who might be interested: http://www.photoshopseminars.com/class/161/ I've been to a few seminars at that location before, but don't recall any of them selling out a 500-seat room. They had to move into a bigger hall to accomodate all the attendees. I suppose I might just go although listening to Kelby for a whole day might make me a little violent. At least I'll have a good lunch (at the KFC just down the street). > On May 29, 4:04 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > violent. At least I'll have a good lunch (at the KFC just down the > street). Luminous Landscape has prepared a very detailed Lightroom course that is 4.5 hours in length, and downloadable, for $14.95. I watched a preview and was impressed. It's nearly 800MB, and high-quality video, which I'll start downloading in a few minutes... The seminar sounds interesting, but to me, I'd rather have something like LL's course...because it means I can re-visit any portion at any time. Here's a link to it if you're interested: TinyUrl: http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gvgkd Or...here's the whole enchelada, for the paranoid among us: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath =2&products_id=126&zenid=4ad11dba15bfc574d20cd04a1a95e850 -Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> On May 29, 4:04 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > impressed. It's nearly 800MB, and high-quality video, which I'll start > downloading in a few minutes... It's worthwhile, esp. if you're new to LR. Interesting dynamics between Jeff Schewe and Michael Reichmann..... > The seminar sounds interesting, but to me, I'd rather have something like > LL's course...because it means I can re-visit any portion at any time. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or...here's the whole enchelada, for the paranoid among us: <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath =2&products_id=126&zenid=4ad11dba15bfc574d20cd04a1a95e850> Don't know about others, but I have no objection to tiny urls from folks I "know" online. OTOH, why bother with setting one up when a bracketed long URL goes fine through any respectable Email client? I've just done most of all three of Deke McClelland's CS3 online tutorials- still have big pieces each of the advanced, intermediate and beginner's sessions left. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>> On May 29, 4:04 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > tutorials- still have big pieces each of the advanced, intermediate > and beginner's sessions left. I'm not familiar with Deke. Where do you access that? I haven't upgraded to CS3, since the beta gave me major printing headaches. I know they've probably worked those kinks out...but I heard a similar complaint from another guy using the full CS3 with Epson printers (I use the 4000 Pro). Adobe has come up with a pretty effective "gotcha" to get people to upgrade, though... -They don't release RAW conversion for new cameras...unless you buy the new version... :) I'll receive my 1D3 tomorrow morning...so until Lightroom is updated, I'll be stuck with Canon's conversion for its RAW files... Oh well... More power to Adobe, I guess, for coming up with a great marketing device. I'm assuming Lightroom WILL receive such an update in short order, so I'm holding out a bit longer for that. Eventually I'll upgrade to CS3 & when I do, I'd be interested to look into the series you refer to. Do you have a link? Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On May 29, 10:26 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > I haven't upgraded to CS3, since the beta gave me major printing headaches. > I know they've probably worked those kinks out...but I heard a similar > complaint from another guy using the full CS3 with Epson printers (I use the > 4000 Pro). I still use the beta version and I have experienced the same problems. When you go to the print menu CS3 doesn't seem to register changes made to printer settings like paper size, paper type, etc. What you have to do is to change the settings of your default printer before you pull up the print menu. CS3 Beta defaults to those settings no matter what you tell it in the print dialogue. > On May 29, 10:26 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > before you pull up the print menu. CS3 Beta defaults to those > settings no matter what you tell it in the print dialogue. My Beta expired... Guess I didn't do the "trick" very well. No matter... I don't feel I need it yet, though that may change if they stall on giving Lightroom a 1D3 converter. -Let's see if Adobe pulls just such a stall...in an attempt to get those slow to upgrade...to jump to CS3 over the issue... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On May 29, 10:41 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > My Beta expired... Guess I didn't do the "trick" very well. Mine finally crapped out the other night, amazingly right after I received an e-mail from Adobe announcing that the Beta would no longer function. WRONG! Sometimes the most obvious fixes are the best. Simply reset your system clock to 2006 instead of 2007. Works like a charm now. Plus, I'm a year younger! I tried setting it back to 1975, but I kept getting constant erections. > On May 29, 10:41 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I tried setting it back to 1975, but I kept getting constant > erections. But your posts are still correct. Hmm... Maybe news servers FINALLY got "smart" enough so we don't have those pesky posts hanging at the top for three months...just because some idjit had his clock turned back... :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On May 29, 10:41 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > My Beta expired... Guess I didn't do the "trick" very well. Mine finally crapped out the other night, amazingly right after I received an e-mail from Adobe announcing that the Beta would no longer function. WRONG! Sometimes the most obvious fixes are the best. Simply reset your system clock to 2006 instead of 2007. Works like a charm now. Plus, I'm a year younger! I tried setting it back to 1975, but I kept getting constant erections. Try setting it to 1907..... On May 29, 10:26 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > I haven't upgraded to CS3, since the beta gave me major printing > headaches. > I know they've probably worked those kinks out...but I heard a similar > complaint from another guy using the full CS3 with Epson printers (I use > the > 4000 Pro). I still use the beta version and I have experienced the same problems. When you go to the print menu CS3 doesn't seem to register changes made to printer settings like paper size, paper type, etc. What you have to do is to change the settings of your default printer before you pull up the print menu. CS3 Beta defaults to those settings no matter what you tell it in the print dialogue. My CS3 Beta will only print in A4 size and you have to set the settings for every printout like you describe. I succeeded to have the preveiw showing A3 size, but it only printed in A4 size anyway. Probably a limitation done by purpose. From time to time my BS3 beta does not startup. But if I try to start the Adobe Device Central CS3 which does not start either then PhotoShop starts afterwards......funny. On May 29, 10:26 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > I'll receive my 1D3 tomorrow morning... Did I ever tell you how much I hate you, PW? You sure about that AM delivery? Last time I checked that shipping info the FEDEX truck was just south of Nashville. The first thing I would do with the 1D3 is to use it's most unique feature. Canon discovered that various lenses work differently with different bodies so a lens like the 300 f/4L that I rented might show serious backfocus problems on my 20D (it did) while working excellently on a different body. The 1D3 lets you calibrate each individual lens for use with it to avoid backfocus problems, thus getting the most out of each piece of glass. Now the bad news, PW. The one problem you will now face as a proud new 1D3 + 500 f/4L owner is that you are now all out of excuses. We will expect nothing less than excellence from all your future work. Certainly lots better than most of that crap you've been used to posting. heck, you might even want to revisit Yosemite and Haleakula just to retake some of those shots with the improved gear. God, I hate your a.s! > On May 29, 10:26 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You sure about that AM delivery? Last time I checked that shipping > info the FEDEX truck was just south of Nashville. That's OK. It ain't on Fed-Ex... :) > The first thing I would do with the 1D3 is to use it's most unique > feature. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > use with it to avoid backfocus problems, thus getting the most out of > each piece of glass. Ya. That's the plan. A great feature that, frankly, will likely save Canon a world of headaches...from pros who send their gear for focus calibration. Instead, it's a do-it-yourself deal. Better for everyone involved, and pretty smart. > Now the bad news, PW. The one problem you will now face as a proud > new 1D3 + 500 f/4L owner is that you are now all out of excuses. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > heck, you might even want to revisit Yosemite and Haleakula just to > retake some of those shots with the improved gear. Heh heh heh... I dare you to post your Haleakala next to my "crappy" one. It's the sunSET, doncha-know... -Forget all that local blather about sunRISES... Colors come with sunlight...not shadow, doncha-know... -But the 1D3 ain't for Haleakala and Half-Dome. The 1D3 is for Alaska and critters. What I DON'T have, and deeply envy YOU for is the incredible abundance of colorful critters you have all around you down south. I looked around today while at work, and just about every living thing I saw was...light brown...dark brown...with the occasion combination of light AND dark brown (ooo-boy!)... Oh...and a bit of black and white...maybe a bit of grey. No yellows...no reds...no greens or blues...just the color of poo. Heck, even the bugs around here are just brown. So... The hate is mutual. > God, I hate your a.s! Ya, but why should today be different? :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On May 29, 11:35 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > What I DON'T have, and deeply envy YOU for is the incredible abundance of > colorful critters you have all around you down south. I looked around today > while at work, and just about every living thing I saw was...light > brown...dark brown...with the occasion combination of light AND dark brown > (ooo-boy!)... Well that's what ya get for living in that shitty state. It is kind of nice here. I can get in my car at work, hop up on the freeway and be out in the country in 5 minutes or on top of the mountain chasing eagles in 10. Who Rules? > Adobe has come up with a pretty effective "gotcha" to get people to upgrade, > though... -They don't release RAW conversion for new cameras...unless you > buy the new version... :) it isn't just a consipiracy to extract money - adobe camera raw 4 is a significant feature update to 3.x and it requires host application support that isn't in cs2 and earlier. it would be nice if they kept adding camera support to earlier versions (which they did with a few iterations of 3.x) but that can't go on forever. the cutoff happened to be with acr 4 and cs3. > I'll receive my 1D3 tomorrow morning...so until > Lightroom is updated, I'll be stuck with Canon's conversion for its RAW > files... Oh well... More power to Adobe, I guess, for coming up with a > great marketing device. I'm assuming Lightroom WILL receive such an update > in short order, so I'm holding out a bit longer for that. lightroom 1.1 is due 'soon' (can't find the post at dpreview at the moment) and since adobe camera raw 4.1 was just announced, lightroom's release is probably *very* soon. >I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to > quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't? Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter. It's main claim to fame is a somewhat questionable ability to recover blown highlights. The underlying technology is provide you the ability to use plugins which produce different results based on someone's idea of what a certain type of picture is supposed to look like. You can make your own. There are a set of WOW filters with pre-sets available free. I used them once or twice but after making my own, discarded them. The original raw shooter required the purchase of separate "colour engines" for different cameras. With the amount of fiddling you enjoy, it's highly likely you will have no use for it. I use it to process 600 or 700 shots in one batch, all with the low contrast style people here don't like. I still need to use PS for HDR and various touch ups but you do that with ACR anyway. I got it free because I had bought raw shooter pro when it was released. Based on RS's performance I never would have bought it. Based on how it manages to mangle some images it shouldn't, I still wouldn't have bought it. I certainly won't upgrade it. For developing Canon images I firmly believe you can't go past Canon's own Digital Photo Professional. Each to their own. Douglas >> I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to >> quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter. That's fairly close. Lightroom came only after Adobe bought the company that made RawShooter, so the similarity isn't a coincidence. I got my copy of Lightroom for free, as a result of already owning RawShooter remium... -A pretty good deal, seeing as Premium cost about $99, and Lightroom runs twice that. It has similar tools to RawShooter, but adds quite a bit to it. I find the dropper tool in Lightroom extremely helpful under the color/sat section, because it lets you adjust individual colors independently, and very intuitively/easily. While Photoshop lets you do this, it is far more intuitive here. This is also an unbelievably useful tool for black & white photos. -A very friendly way of adjusting things akin to the channel mixer in PS...but again...more intuitive. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > > Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter. > > That's fairly close. Lightroom came only after Adobe bought the company > that made RawShooter, so the similarity isn't a coincidence. what ever gave you that idea? lightroom has been in development for a number of years. it was first released to the public in january, 2006 as a public beta, and adobe's aquisition of pixmantec was in june, 2006. <http://photoshopnews.com/2006/01/09/the-shadowlandlightroom-development- story> <http://www.adobe.com/special/pixmantec/> >>> Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > story> > <http://www.adobe.com/special/pixmantec/> My understanding was that Adobe bought them out in order to utilize some of their tech in Lightroom without encroaching. I'm not emotionally involved, so if that is shown to be wrong...great! SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > My understanding was that Adobe bought them out in order to utilize some of > their tech in Lightroom without encroaching. I'm not emotionally involved, > so if that is shown to be wrong...great! they definitely incorporated rawshooter in lightroom and adobe camera raw. however, the lightroom project began long before that occured. that's all. :) >> My understanding was that Adobe bought them out in order to utilize >> some of their tech in Lightroom without encroaching. I'm not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > raw. however, the lightroom project began long before that occured. > that's all. :) The Lightroom we now enjoy is the way it is...to a significant degree...because they incorporated technologies they aqcuired from RawShooter Premium. Does that pass your legal verbage-checker? :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> My understanding was that Adobe bought them out in order to utilize >>> some of their tech in Lightroom without encroaching. I'm not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Does that pass your legal verbage-checker? > :) Define: significant! :) I believe they acquired it more for the top two guys who developed it as for the technology. Keep an eye out. Should be a good upgrade/bug fix soon. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>> My understanding was that Adobe bought them out in order to utilize >>>> some of their tech in Lightroom without encroaching. I'm not [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Keep an eye out. Should be a good upgrade/bug fix soon. As to question re Deke McClelland, he's "at" lynda.com. Very high grade training, available on subscription basis. I got a month's freebie with purchase of full CS3 suite..... for students. Way better than diddling the clock. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > I got a month's freebie with > purchase of full CS3 suite..... for students. Way better than diddling > the clock. Really? How much did that CS3 suite set you back? -Annika ----> loves free stuff Annika1980 wrote on 30 May 2007 06:56:39 -0700: ??>> I got a month's freebie with ??>> purchase of full CS3 suite..... for students. Way better ??>> than diddling the clock. ??>> A> Really? How much did that CS3 suite set you back? After looking at the prices of paper and ink-jet cartridges, I can't see how I'd ever approach the prices that Kodak charges. The results are pretty good even for larger sizes and, after I've edited my pictures, I can usually upload them and pick them up the next day at my local drug store. James Silverton Potomac, Maryland E-mail, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Annika1980 wrote on 30 May 2007 06:56:39 -0700: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ??>> > A> Really? How much did that CS3 suite set you back? If you qualify for the academic version - CS3 = $289.95 USD, CS3 + Lightroom = $379.95 USD, ... plus S&H. >> I got a month's freebie with >> purchase of full CS3 suite..... for students. Way better than diddling [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Annika ----> loves free stuff About $315. hafta be a stoodint at one of their approved institutions. I are. uscollegebuy.com. Tell 'em jp sent ya. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > >> I got a month's freebie with > >> purchase of full CS3 suite..... for students. Way better than diddling [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > About $315. hafta be a stoodint at one of their approved institutions. I > are. uscollegebuy.com. Tell 'em jp sent ya. Wow, what a bargain! Oh wait, I got it for free! Who Rules? -Annika -----> clock diddler >>>> I got a month's freebie with >>>> purchase of full CS3 suite..... for students. Way better than diddling [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -Annika -----> clock diddler Among other things. I guess it's simply a choice individuals make. I am thrilled I got it legally at a very good price. At some point, maybe later in life, maybe tomorrow, many find there's a price to pay in lack of integrity. And maybe not. But it's unseemly to brag about it! Baaaaadddd Brett, Badddddd! Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>>>> I got a month's freebie with >>>>> purchase of full CS3 suite..... for students. Way better than [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > a price to pay in lack of integrity. And maybe not. But it's unseemly > to brag about it! Baaaaadddd Brett, Badddddd! Well isn't that special... ....Hmmm... -Stealing software for your own teensy-weensy enjoyment while the honest wallets of others pitter patter their way to Heaven.... Hmmm...Who might think that's a good idea... Hmmm.... Could it be.......SATAN?????? :) -Church Lady SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> About $315. hafta be a stoodint at one of their approved >> institutions. I are. uscollegebuy.com. Tell 'em jp sent ya. > > Wow, what a bargain! Oh wait, I got it for free! No surprise! I know you're putting the savings towards a Mk III and a 17-35/2.8 Nikkor. Rita > > Wow, what a bargain! Oh wait, I got it for free! > > No surprise! I know you're putting the savings towards a Mk III and a > 17-35/2.8 Nikkor. > > Rita No, for wide angle I thought I'd go with the Zeiss 21mm "T" Distagon. >>>> Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of their tech in Lightroom without encroaching. I'm not emotionally > involved, so if that is shown to be wrong...great! I think at least some of the software engineers on Rawshooter moved over to Adobe. That was MS's modus operandi. Many of my contemporaries (Comp. Sci. '76) started companies and sold out to MS at an appropriate point, with the better technical types getting good deals at MS. (The ones who were greedy and missed the optimal sell-out point got nothing.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> > Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > story> > <http://www.adobe.com/special/pixmantec/> Why would they give a free copy out to every registered RawShooter Pro owner if LR had no relationship to RS? SignatureDouglas, Those who can, just do it. Those who can't become bullies. http://www.bullyonline.org >>>> Lightroom is born again Raw Shooter. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Why would they give a free copy out to every registered RawShooter > Pro owner if LR had no relationship to RS? Because it does have a relation to it. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Why would they give a free copy out to every registered RawShooter Pro owner > if LR had no relationship to RS? i didn't say no relation at all, only that lightroom isn't rawshooter reborn. >> Why would they give a free copy out to every registered RawShooter >> Pro owner if LR had no relationship to RS? > > i didn't say no relation at all, only that lightroom isn't rawshooter > reborn. The two are significantly intertwined. -'Nuff said. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >For developing Canon images I firmly believe > you can't go past Canon's own Digital Photo Professional. Each to their own. That's clearly not true. The Canon raw processing in Adobe Photoshop is clearly superior. In fact, just one feature of it ... the ability to correct lateral chromatic aberration in the 12 bit domain ... makes it superior. In addition, I just like the Adobe controls better. Doug McDonald >> For developing Canon images I firmly believe >> you can't go past Canon's own Digital Photo Professional. Each to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to correct lateral chromatic aberration in the 12 bit domain ... makes it > superior. In addition, I just like the Adobe controls better. I use LR as my main. Canon DPP is superior in one way: For photos with extremes of temperature, it pulls more out than LR can. But these are extremes which many of us never shoot at. Signaturejohn mcwilliams For what you do you need Lightroom like you need a hole in your wallet. > I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to > quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't? I tried the beta (or whatever) and found it would be useful for a lot of images in the same lighting, same general theme. Get a lot done on a lot of images quicker. Will I buy it? No. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to >quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't? And yet, the freeware RAW Therapee from www.rawtherapee.com does more and does it better than both of them. I just got through comparing them. You should have asked, "What does Lightroom and Photoshop do that RAW Therapee won't?" Simple answer: Both Adobe products will turn you into a royal-sap for wasting your money on either one. > >I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to > >quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Simple answer: Both Adobe products will turn you into a royal-sap for wasting > your money on either one. Well yes but then you believe that a point and shoot camera is better then a DSLR as well, for me at least this makes it had to give your opinion much weight. Scott >> >I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to >> >quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Scott Oh look! It's that useless Scott Troll that insists EVERY dSLR in existence must be better than every P&S in existence, to justify why he's wasting his money and wanting everyone else to jump off the same stupidity-cliff that he did. >>>> I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to >>>> quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > he's wasting his money and wanting everyone else to jump off the same > stupidity-cliff that he did. Whether you're correct, or incorrect in you assertions... ...your language and attitude paints you as someone not worth reading. PLONK and fare thee well... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to >>quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > wasting > your money on either one. Lightroom is a mature product. rawtherapee is: THe Experimental RAw Photo Editor SignatureDouglas, Those who can, just do it. Those who can't become bullies. http://www.bullyonline.org >Lightroom is a mature product. rawtherapee is: >THe Experimental RAw Photo Editor And CHDK firmware is being released under the filenames of : "test1-pre12-.....", and yet it turns every camera it supports into a more capable camera than any DSLR that's ever been on the market. If you are going to judge software by its name then don't use ACDSee either or it might turn you into a bisexual!! What a fuckin' fool. But then, that's how Adobe gets wealthy, "A fool is born every minute." And "A fool and his money are soon parted." Adobe makes sure to dig into the pockets of each and every one of you that is born. > On Wed, 30 May 2007 12:07:26 +1000, "Ryadiia" > <stop.all.bullying@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > pockets > of each and every one of you that is born. ------------------- I just downloaded your pet raw converter and AFAICS it is a clunky, not very workable program. There is little or no ability to recover blown highlights. One of Lightroom's "features". I can't find either, any WOW support for it. In fact I can't find too many developers who offer any additions to it, much less free ones like you can get for LR. It's all well and good to support open source and experimental software but really, when it comes to the crunch, it really can't compete with commercial stuff. Adobe products didn't get to be as good as they are because every Tom, Dick and Harry bent the source code until it worked the way some propeller head wanted it to. This is number 8 in the raw converters I've checked out. It might work OK with average images but the real test of a RAW converter is when you have a "must be saved at any cost" image. Rawtherapee fails the test on them. Maybe when it matures it might be worth another look but that isn't today. People who rely on software for a living and choose their applications after careful consideration are not fools. OK so I own $3k worth of imaging software. Hardly a splash in the bucket when you consider how much my camera gear cost. If I can't rely on the software to pull the absolutely best image from my files, it wouldn't matter if they paid me to use it, I still couldn't afford it. SignatureDouglas, Those who can, just do it. Those who can't become bullies. http://www.bullyonline.org >There is little or no ability to recover blown highlights. One of >Lightroom's "features". I can't find either, any WOW support for it. In fact >I can't find too many developers who offer any additions to it, much less >free ones like you can get for LR. Aww look, another idiot that can't find what's built in. :-) Go back to what you know, better software is obviously too much for your small mind to cope with. >Lightroom is a mature product. rawtherapee is: >THe Experimental RAw Photo Editor Lightroom is only at v1.0 (still in Beta phase actually) RAW Therapee is at v2.1 I guess if you are going to be so stupid as to judge a software's capabilities by program names alone then RAW Therapee is way ahead of the game. > Lightroom is only at v1.0 (still in Beta phase actually) actually, no - it has been final for several months, and version 1.1 is about to ship. >> Lightroom is only at v1.0 (still in Beta phase actually) > >actually, no - it has been final for several months, and version 1.1 is >about to ship. Merely pointing out the utter stupidity of some of these Adobe Fools that post on the internet. Even at Lightroom v1.1, according to their reasoning, RAW Therapee v2.1 still is the better software. No wonder they stay stuck in Adobe-ville. They are too afraid to move out of the mud (adobe) because that's all they know, were forced to know, or told to know. Heaven forbid that someone should come along and show them some water and a towel to clean themselves up and learn to walk upright. They'll just go on screaming bloody murder for their right to continue flopping around in last century's mud. >>> Lightroom is only at v1.0 (still in Beta phase actually) >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > upright. They'll just go on screaming bloody murder for their right > to continue flopping around in last century's mud. Not true, chum. In fact...so many of "us" were using RawShooter...that Adobe BOUGHT IT! And why did they do that? -Because of the very fact that Adobe users want the best tool, and if Adobe doesn't offer, we look for alternatives. Because of that fact, Adobe got even more serious about the RAW aspect of the digital workflow, and worked Lightroom into a very similar program in many aspects...with improvements of their own. As I see it, it's an example of a company making a move that we all benefit from. Had it been Microsoft...RawShooter would have just disappeared...but this was Adobe, and they took a different approach. They actually incorporated ideas in a powerful way. Heck, they even gave RawShooter users a free copy of Lightroom. Now fit that into your little "spin," chum. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> Lightroom is only at v1.0 (still in Beta phase actually) >> actually, no - it has been final for several months, and version 1.1 is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and learn to walk upright. They'll just go on screaming bloody murder for their > right to continue flopping around in last century's mud. How poetic. Whyncha stfu, or post some images you've manipulated into magnificence with this sorry a.s software?? Signaturelsmft > I use Downloader Pro to download my images and Breezebrowser to > quickly view them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So what will Lightroom do that Photoshop won't? Lightroom is a storage and archive type of program. It is geared to professional photographers who have 10's of Thousands of photos. It allows the Pro to group types of photos (landscape, stock, or buildings) that might need to be accessed quickly. For the Average Photographer, it is a little bit of overkill. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.