Lightroom

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Brian,

 

My take on the bother of converting is that proprietery RAW versions seem to come and go with the whims of perpetual pumping out of new brands, models, whatever. When they fade, dissappear, you have no support for the format. It seems (reasonable) that Adobe DNG is being accepted as an international standard tht hoperfully will perpetuate despite what brand of camera you use and whether it is still in current production and support. But, as with all things digital, nothing is really certain!

 

Cheers,

Erl

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[spylaw4]

Point taken, erl! But let's hope that Adobe's DNG does become the w/w standard! Remember Betamax? :-)

[abrewer]

hi -

i have tried to use the lightroom a few times, including the beta 3. it looks great indeed in terms of aesthetics. it has additional web gallery builder which is very nice in macromedia style. but it doesnt work smoothly many times (on latest powerbook 1.67). aperture is a much better software at the moment in all aspects.

photoshop has greater control, but if u usually limit yourself to RAW conversion and color editing - the lightroom has all the tools u may need (in develop section). for film users though, u cannot have a tool to clean your film with the lightroom.

as organizer - bridge is much faster and smoother, cause it is very simple and effective software which does what it should do without aesthetical adds on it. aperture is the best as library manager, and the most intuitive as well.

 

I couldn't agree more, at least with the bits about Lightroom function per se.

 

BTW, welcome to the Forum Vic. Stay safe please.

 

Flash slideshows are terrific and are incredibly easy to build in the dedicated Lightroom module. Having said that, though, the only slide output my download had was for PDF! What is that all about? What happened to the HTML and Flash??? C'mon updates!!!

 

I've not printed anything yet--can't comment on those features. The promise of printing rapidly from a draft image without waiting for a mature file to build sounds terrific if it's true.

 

On my PC there are starts and stutters that make working with the Windows Beta mildly frustrating, but it's a free Beta so "Deal With It!".

 

If you routinely correct, repair, or edit portions of the image with tools, layers and masks you still need your Photoshop. Same if you like your plug-ins, though Adobe has promised a prominent place for them in LR.

 

The image Library does offer great flexibility in storage, and the ability to batch work through "Quick Collections" is something new and nice (at least to me!).

 

Here's a few useful links I've found to get you started if this thread and others have you wondering what it's like and you want to jump in the pool with the rest of us:

 

Lightroom Website

 

The Lightroom Movie

 

Michael Reichman's Excellent Primer

 

 

LR is more intuitive than any PS or Elements product I've ever used. Novice photographers starting with auto-function digital gear should love it. Look for it to be bundled instead of Elements once it's launched.

 

It'll be interesting to see how the software evolves as users contribute ideas and suggestions. Will it become as top-heavy and challenging to a new user as PS?

 

Time will tell!

 

Thanks.

 

Allan

[ptomsu]

"Is lightroom easier, and less complex than PS,"

 

Yes, but less powerful too.

 

Consider iViewMedia Pro before Bridge, although Bridge is "free" with PSCS2

 

Aperture is even more powerful than Lightroom and iView and Bridge, still does not bring the editing capabilities of PS. Although many people will not need all the PS capabilities. And then Aperture is much easier than anything I know.

 

Drawback - for the moment it runs only on Mac OS X.

[mitchell]

Is it true that Aperture doesn't support DMR images? Do you think it will?

 

Thanks,

 

Mitchell

[rob_rob]

Please tell me if I am missing some bleeding obvious point, in which case I will go crawl under a rock.

I have never fully investigated one fine point about 'RAW versus DNG', but i suspect that RAW may have one inherent advantage over DNG.

 

Let's say, you shoot in RAW format, then you convert to JPEG in order to upload your images to the web. And then, let's say, someone steals your image and you take him to court. Being able to produce the original RAW version of an image to the court, you got yourself a case won. Would it be the same if you could provide only the original file that was previously converted do the DNG format? Technically, it would be only the duplicate and not the original. Am I thinking straight?

 

So, in conclusion, if my thinking is indeed right, I should wait with the utilization of the DNG format until my camera uses it natively during shooting.

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rob,

 

The DNG 'original copy' of the RAW out of camera carries all EXIF data that the RAW file has, including the date and time of original exposure, so it can still be proven that your file pre-dates anything a web thief may have.

 

Additionally, there is the context that images were shot in. Mostly the photographer will a series that the stolen image belongs to. Remember, that is how we used to prove our ownership before digital was invented.

 

The real issue, for me, is easy filing and processing of my day to day work rather than protectiong myself from an occasional thief, that I will probably be unaware of anyway. Just being pragmatic, as I know that actual clients of mine, from time to time, use my images without re-imbursing me. I just charge them all a bit more up front and don't bother policing use. YMMV.

 

Cheers,

Erl

 

Cheers,

Erl

[rob_rob]

Erl,

 

I know that DNG conversion retains all EXIF data of RAW, but will it be treated by law as an original or as a copy?

 

As to not bothering about enforcing your copyrights too aggressively, I think it's a quite healthy attitude. I am not paranoic myself. But there will be times when one photographer or another will face the situation where he/she will need to prove their ownership...

[erl]

Erl,

 

I know that DNG conversion retains all EXIF data of RAW, but will it be treated by law as an original or as a copy?

 

.

 

Rob, my take on it, (not authoratative!) is that someone must prove ownership. All sorts of circumstances will support that. eg. A client brief to shoot. Images from the series that are associated, etc. It is too easy to prove originality other than RAW 'factuality'. A thief has no acces to this corroborative detail. The owner has reality on their side. I see no problem. Unless it's a million dollar deal, does it matter anyway?

[jrgeoffrion]

I've downloaded and tried the LR beta.

 

LR is essentially Adobe Camera Raw with a prettier interface except for a few "add-ons" such as the printing feature and the ability to convert to B&W directly from the raw file.

 

It uses the same "engine" under the hood as ACR does -- including the calibration. This may change since they purchased the assets of Pixmantec.

 

Lastly, I hope this does NOT mean that ACR will be discountinued because it allows users to apply both the raw corrections AS WELL AS Photoshop action in batch processing (such as denoising, sharpening, resizing, convertion, and any plug-in).

 

I hope this helps.