sanyasi

Sorry about your bad luck, but don't beat yourself up. Last year, I let down my guard in the Paris Metro and got pickpocketed for the first time. Fortunately, they only took the 150 Euros, and then threw the wallet on the ground, so all the important stuff was there. Stuff happens.

I have been a way from LR for at least 5 years. At the time, I was bringing files into LR through its import function, which as I recall,was putting stuff where it wanted it to go. I assume there probably was and is a way to import through Bridge, and then edit in LR, but I was also taking files from LR and doing some editing in Photoshop. It was just too cumbersome for me. Just to add fuel to the fire. I have the same issue with Capture One, and I know I can do individual sessions with it, and do that when I use my Leaf back for Lens Cast Corrections. I just find it messy. As I said, I do what works for me. Everyone else should do what works for them. At the end of the day, it is the print that matters. There are just different ways to get there.

There is no right answer. I started with Lightroom, but now use Photoshop. I don't like LR's file management system. I transfer my files to my photo hard drive/Raid system using Bridge, where I add metadata before the transfer. I then use Bridge to select the files I want to open from my hard drive, make the major adjustments in ACR, and then do any additional work, which mostly consists of adjustment layers, luminosity masks, spot removal, NIK apps, and sharpening in Photoshop. My Canon 1000 printer has printing software that integrates with Photoshop as a plugin, so I use Photoshop/Canon for printing. I would say the secret to my approach is having a good file management system. Mine works like this: 2018 Photography folder 01_January 02_February 02_10_2018_Demonstration Protesting.... 02_20_2018_Paris Day 1 It works for me, and that is all that matters.

I have tried the Waccom tablets twice over the years. I have significant difficulties drawing anything, and I found the process more cumbersome than it was worth. This was a problem when I was a kid learning script. To be clear, that's my experience. Many people swear by them. From my experience, I assume people who have good hand-eye coordination will be much happier with these devices than people like me. I can't color within the lines. Fortunately, I am not big on replacing skies and CGI type editing, so it isn't a big problem for me.

I use Photo Mechanic to import. I add Meta data identification at this stage. I then open selected files in Adobe Camera Raw. As of late a pattern has emerged. I leave Exposure unchanged, reduce Highlights, increase (open up) shadows, increase Whites, and increase Blacks. Of course, it is a balancing act for each photograph. I go with default sharpening and noise reduction. Then I do any perspective correction in Adobe Raw. If there is purple fringing, I correct that. Depending on the Photograph, I may use a gradient or vignette. Often with a Vignette, I use two, one to darken the outer portion, and one to lighten the inner portion. At this point, I bring the image into Photoshop, where I apply adjustment layers, allowing me to mask. My go to layers are Curves, Color (HSL), and Selective color adjustment. Before applying layers, I do spot removal--viewing at 100%. If I do any object removal, like a mike stand or piece of garbage, I do that before applying layers. Depending on requirements, I also add a layer to dodge and burn. If I am converting to monochrome, I now use D&O rather than Nik, I do it at this point. If I do any more sharpening, I do it in the Nik program. No photo gets all of these adjustments. I work to keep the colors natural rather than over saturated. My go to phrase is, Can I sell this? In other words, is it believable.

I strongly disagree. People like the color profiles, the color tools, and I am "forced" to use it when I use my tech camera because of its capacity to process LCC profiles. Having said that, Capture 1 is very poorly designed and documented, it has a terrible user interface, its cataloging of files is difficult to deal with, and it is extremely buggy. I am a Photoshop/ACR user, but I started with Lightroom, and that is where I recommend you start if you are serious about digital photography. I haven't looked recently, but I suspect, based on my experience with Adobe Photoshop, that there are a ton of a free videos on YouTube that you can use to teach yourself the program. I also find with Photoshop, and I suspect that the same is true for Lightroom, if I have a question, I can type keywords into Google, and get an answer quickly. Even if you need to go to a paid video model like Scott Kelby or Linda, those services are relatively inexpensive for what you get. I have tried the Luminous Landscape videos and one book that I purchased from Amazon on Capture One. Both were terrible. I am also tired of the attacks on Adobe's subscription model. When it was instituted, there were dozens of articles and posts pointing out that the monthly fee model was not all that much more expensive (If it was more expensive) than the two or three-year upgrade cycle, with the advantage that features were added on an ongoing basis, there were other features available (like the opportunity to participate in a program to promote your work). It was not a question of greed. Adobe needs to be profitable to make the software available--Google is giving the NIK suite a way, but no longer updates it, meaning that eventually it will not work as operating systems are evolve. After 2 or 3 years, Adobe has been "honorable" when it comes holding the price for photographers relatively level. And then there were those who said Adobe would go out of business because photographers in mass would reject the new licensing model. That apparently hasn't happened. The stock price, if I recall correctly, was in the mid to upper 40s when the program was introduced. Yesterday, the closing price was $130 a share. Individual photographers tend to be photographer-centric. If you run a large advertising agency, design firm, marketing shop, or media company, Adobe's new model eliminates many licensing headaches and update issues, which may explain why the stock price has moved up. Nobody ever seems to question the R&D costs of new equipment, but for some reason, they think software doesn't cost money to create or maintain. Adobe created a special program for the individual photographer. It is also ironic that people on a forum where the base camera is a $7,000 dollar proposition complain about paying a $120 US or so a year to have access to a fabulous program. Even if you are not replacing the sky or compositing creatures into your work, Photoshop or some of post-capture processing capability is a critical element in the digital photographer's overall work flow. As for Lightroom being hard to come by as a stand-along program, apparently not in the U.S. It is available for license as a stand along product or through a subscription model at BHPhoto. According to BH Photo, this is was you get with the Adobe Creative Cloud Photography Plan (12 months) for $119.48 per year: Dedicated Photo Editing Suite Subscription to Photoshop and Lightroom Tools to Organize, Edit, Enhance & Share Constant and Automatic Feature Updates Up-to-Date Camera Support Extensive Library of How-To Videos Cloud-Based Storage for Multiple Devices Sync to Photoshop Mix & Lightroom Mobile For Mac and Windows Operating Systems It is also worth noting that Capture One has introduced a subscription model. The cost is $180 for a 12-month subscription, but you can also download a freestanding copy ($299.00), but then you pay for periodic updates (current update to Capture Pro 10 $89--prices from BHPhoto website. Keep in mind that CaptureOne, because of its association with PhaseOne, does not support cameras that are viewed as competitive with PhaseOne products. I don't have a complete list of unsupported cameras, but it has recently been reported that the Fuji GFX 50s and Hasselblad X1D are not supported. I was able to immediately process my Fuji GFX 50s files in Photoshop (ACR), and I am told that was true for Lightroom users. In the end, if you are serious about your digital photographer, you are going to have a considerably larger investment of time than money to learn digital processing whatever program you select. In my opinion, it is worth the effort.

I use a folder system: Folder-Photographs Sub Folder-2016 Sub Sub Folder--11_30_2016_Chicago River Landscape. Anything that I print or post online is stored as follows-- Folder-Photographs Sub-Folder-2016 Sub Sub Folder--Output If Output gets too full, I create an Output II folder, and so forth. I use PhotoMechanic to browse the Output folder, but you could use Bridge. I don't use Lightroom Catalogs or the CaptureOne comparable. I always work in sessions. I have been pretty much a Photoshop user, but I am moving toward CaptureOne. When I work in CaptureOne, I follow the above format, but I put the CaptureOne Session in the Sub Sub Folder 12_01_2016_Fashion Show. And then the Capture One subfolders go under there automatically. I have been using this approach for six or seven years, and I usually can find any photograph within a couple of minutes. The biggest problem is remembering the year. All of this is stored on two Raid drives. One on site and one off site. When a drive gets filled, I buy two more drives. The drives are labeled with the years that they include. I also keep a high resolution jpg in an online portfolio--the system reduces the file size for display, but the high resolution file is stored. And I keep the high resolution photo on an iPad in the Folio app. I certainly wouldn't want to lose the originals, but the online and Folio are two fail safes. At some point, I would like to put all of this up in the Cloud, but I still find the process fairly cumbersome and slow, but it is getting better. BTW, I use the same system for personal and business records. It works for me.

UPDATE: Panorama size. In early July 2016, Canon issued a firmware update for this printer. It now permits longer paper: Specifically, "The maximum printable height of custom paper size will be lengthened to 25.5-inch (647.70mm) with specifying in the printer driver." Not sure why they needed to set a limit: I assume that Canon figured longer paper was not needed because the width would exceed the 17" limit. Hahnemuhle makes some specially cut panorama paper that I am looking forward to testing. I have not tested the firmware yet.

But I assume automating the features saves a lot of time.

I just updated Photoshop, going form CC 2015 to CC 2015.5. All my Nik plug-ins stopped working, along with several others. They just disappeared. I reinstalled the Nik suite--now free--and still no luck. Problem solved by going to Applications/Adobe Photoshop CC 2015/Plug-ins, and copying all the relevant plug-in folders, and then pasting them into the equivalent place in the Adobe Photoshop 2015.5 plug-ins folder. I also moved the Canon print software plug-in, but I haven't tested it yet. Hope this saves people some time and aggravation.

I recently purchased a used Rodenstock lens from Capture Integration. I was with the salesman at a workshop and my impression is that they have a lot more open-box stuff than they advertise on their site. If you are unfamiliar with Capture Integration, this is one of the two largest medium format camera dealers in the U.S. They carry Eizo, so you might give them a call. 877-217-9870. Ask to speak to Chris, but everyone has been great. https://www.digitalback.com/product-category/eizo/

For information: I purchased my first Eizo about 10 years ago. I purchased it from Eizo as a factory refurbished or demonstration model--I forget. It was like brand new, and I remember it cost significantly less than the new one. It lasted a good 7 years without any trouble. You might check the Eizo website or call them about refurbished models if Eizo is of any interest.

No controversy. I just get tired of your snotty tone. If Jeff uses it, it is great. If he doesn't, not great. There is a dismissive tone to most of your posts. I have noticed it for a long time. As for writing about it, I posted a lengthy personal review because I liked the printer and wanted to share my experience. Up to that point, like many photographers, I had been captive to Epson, which produced a problematic printer--one that lots of people had trouble with. Every time I posted an update, you went out of your way to argue about it. All I was doing was giving my personal observations.

I used it on and off. I was highly skeptical that it made that much of a difference. I have never been a fan of the Epson print driver interface, either. I find that the software that came with my new Canon Prograf 1000 printer is the best print software I have ever used. It is simple and straight-forward. As for replacing the dongle, I developed and sold my own software for over a decade. It was copy-protected. If a user's software copy protection file became corrupted, I would provide a replacement. True, someone might have tried to rip me off to get a second working version of the software, but I don't think that happened too often. As for Imageprint and many of the other tools marketed to photographers: None of them make a crappy photograph good. In my view, many photographers operate under the mistaken impression that more precision makes for better photographs. Often the tools just make life more complicated for the photographer.

I used ImagePrint for three or four years, until their dongle failed. If I recall correctly, they wanted to charge me $150 or so to replace it. Their copy protection, but I should pay to replace it when it fails. I chose not replace it. The interface to this software is terrible--goes back to a DOS style interface. The only reason to use this software is for the custom icc profiles. For me, the difference was not significant enough (if even noticeable) to outweigh the lousy interface.