zlatkob Posted July 20, 2010 Share #41 Posted July 20, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) Fotomiguel, I've processed over 100,000 raw files in LR since 2006 (from various cameras), so I have a good idea of how it works. Based on these little thumbnails, the "before" photos look more natural, more real; their white balance looks correct and normal. The before versions look already corrected. The "after" versions don't simply look corrected; they look stylized. The colors are more expressive, but less real. I would completely expect this for a fashion, advertising or fine art shoot. As I've mentioned before, the brochure photos look beautiful, just a bit inconsistent with some key points in the text. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 20, 2010 Posted July 20, 2010 Hi zlatkob, Take a look here Leica M brochure; not good enough. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
drums1977 Posted July 20, 2010 Share #42 Posted July 20, 2010 Don't forget you are working with raw files. The raw files are flat. You have to develop the files. This can be done in a few seconds. Even you can develop one and apply the same changes to the similar images. How long you need to develop with lightroom? If the shot is fine you just need a few of quick steps to get the final. In the examples of the brochure, you have a bit more of brighness, contrast and Whitebalance. The normal and quick postprocessing. No using the big tools of PS or changing dramaticaly the Shot. Fotomiguel, in my opinion what you say is a good example of that photographic peace of mind I was talking about previously. You speak about the use of LR, and what you (and Adobe) call "developing" as some valid and harmless step in the photographic process, in oposition to the "big tools of PS" that, according to you, are the ones that "change dramatically the shot". Why? LightRoom packs more and stronger tools in every update and it's created by the same Adobe people. A raw image can be changed completely by using just LR, won't it be a "dramatic" change just because the Adobe people chose to call it "develop" instead of "modify"? Or is the fact that it is done "in a few seconds" or "in a few quick steps" what makes it OK? I suppose then that a professional designer who masters PS and is able to apply changes in seconds is considered "not guilty"... Or is the fact tha he uses PS instead of LT the "bad" thing? The modification of the image (raw file, negative, slide, etc) is an mandatory part of the photographic process, it doesn't matter how you do it or what tools you use. As someone said before, It is the use of those tools, one of the things that separates professionals from most amateurs. IMO, i really like the style of the pictures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alun Posted July 20, 2010 Share #43 Posted July 20, 2010 Ah well... I opened this thread with hope thinking it was going to be an M9 post about photograph *content*. It almost was. So close.... Maybe soon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicashot Posted July 20, 2010 Share #44 Posted July 20, 2010 Fotomiguel, in my opinion what you say is a good example of that photographic peace of mind I was talking about previously. You speak about the use of LR, and what you (and Adobe) call "developing" as some valid and harmless step in the photographic process, in oposition to the "big tools of PS" that, according to you, are the ones that "change dramatically the shot". Why? LightRoom packs more and stronger tools in every update and it's created by the same Adobe people. A raw image can be changed completely by using just LR, won't it be a "dramatic" change just because the Adobe people chose to call it "develop" instead of "modify"? Or is the fact that it is done "in a few seconds" or "in a few quick steps" what makes it OK? I suppose then that a professional designer who masters PS and is able to apply changes in seconds is considered "not guilty"... Or is the fact tha he uses PS instead of LT the "bad" thing?The modification of the image (raw file, negative, slide, etc) is an mandatory part of the photographic process, it doesn't matter how you do it or what tools you use. As someone said before, It is the use of those tools, one of the things that separates professionals from most amateurs. IMO, i really like the style of the pictures. I agree except that I believe what separates professionals from most amateurs is the experience and ability to shoot images as technically perfect out of camera, not having to 'rely' on the use of anything more than light PP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotomiguel Posted July 20, 2010 Share #45 Posted July 20, 2010 What is clear now is that the M9 brochure shows how well works the camera in good hands with different lenses and accesories. One more thing that is clear is that the M9 come with the Lightroom 2: a raw developer which in good hands with a bit of expirience permet you to develop the raw files easily and quickly and permet you to use them directly for a brochure. May be you don't like the pictures but It's clear that the brochure shows many interesting things. After all what is really important is that the M9 is able to produce incredible images. Amateurs or professionals depending on skills and habilities will get better or not so good pictures but this happens with any camera. What is clear for me is that the photographer of the brochure has great skills and habilities and he knows very good how to use the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted July 20, 2010 Share #46 Posted July 20, 2010 What is clear now is that the M9 brochure shows how well works the camera in good hands with different lenses and accesories.One more thing that is clear is that the M9 come with the Lightroom 2: a raw developer which in good hands with a bit of expirience permet you to develop the raw files easily and quickly and permet you to use them directly for a brochure. May be you don't like the pictures but It's clear that the brochure shows many interesting things. After all what is really important is that the M9 is able to produce incredible images. Amateurs or professionals depending on skills and habilities will get better or not so good pictures but this happens with any camera. What is clear for me is that the photographer of the brochure has great skills and habilities and he knows very good how to use the M9. Yep I would agree with that - and here endeth the thread.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted July 21, 2010 Share #47 Posted July 21, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree except that I believe what separates professionals from most amateurs is the experience and ability to shoot images as technically perfect out of camera, not having to 'rely' on the use of anything more than light PP. I'd agree, except I know a lot of pros who use quite heavy PP to wonderful effect--even pros who work with film. The difference is that a pro gets what they need out of the camera capture and an amateur tries to rescue a shot from a bad capture And sometimes, at events in particular, rescuing a shot in post is all that can be hoped for, no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom M Posted July 23, 2010 Share #48 Posted July 23, 2010 I agree with the original post. Indeed, what is this with Leica, Cuba, and Che Guevara? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
redbaron Posted July 23, 2010 Share #49 Posted July 23, 2010 I agree with the original post. Indeed, what is this with Leica, Cuba, and Che Guevara? Maybe Leica is still trading on the most reproduced image of all time, or maybe it's just a very photogenic country. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bo_Lorentzen Posted July 23, 2010 Share #50 Posted July 23, 2010 Does anyone (other than me) find it fascinating that everyone in this discussion are the proud owners of a M9, yet engaged in defining just how poor the M9 brochure seems to be.? Seems to me the brochure must be OK.? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted July 23, 2010 Share #51 Posted July 23, 2010 Does anyone (other than me) find it fascinating that everyone in this discussion are the proud owners of a M9, yet engaged in defining just how poor the M9 brochure seems to be.? Seems to me the brochure must be OK.? Yes, but most of us would have bought the camera even if the brochure had been filled exclusively with sepia-toned & hand-colored photos of dog poop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted July 23, 2010 Share #52 Posted July 23, 2010 I agree with the original post. Indeed, what is this with Leica, Cuba, and Che Guevara? I think it's called 'guerilla marketing'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAX Posted July 23, 2010 Share #53 Posted July 23, 2010 I think it's called 'guerilla marketing'. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted July 23, 2010 Share #54 Posted July 23, 2010 I think it's called 'guerilla marketing'. Haha, good one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom M Posted July 24, 2010 Share #55 Posted July 24, 2010 I think it's called 'guerilla marketing'. Yes. No we are getting somewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.