Lightroom 6 (old) - M11

[M11 for me]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 19 Stunden schrieb mirekti:

The idea of paying a subscription is so repulsive to me no matter how cheap it is. The price itself was never an issue.

I think that its a pitty to have that attitude. Since there is the new subscription model we get lots of new improvements. Just everything included. Plus you have photoshop. Then once a moth you get your credit card charged without ever doing somthing. You have many advantages and just because you hear „subscription“ you say no to it? You just harm yourself.

Just something else comes to my mind: Are you aware how many new features were added to LR Classic during the last 12 moths? Its amazing how much this tool developes. 

[Ouroboros]

The last time I bought Ps (6), it cost me £600 for the disc and key.   That equates to about 5 years' worth of CC subscriptions and the benefits of the regular CC updates that I get for my £9.99 per month.  I prefer paying the subscription for Ps CC despite the fact that I will never use Lr.

One other benefit of basic CC subscription that no one ever seems to mention is the included access to Behance.  I've just started exploring it and see it as a potential viable and easy option for publishing a portfolio online.  When the time comes that I no longer need a full-blown Squarespace website, hosting costs, plus the expense of plug-in licensing etc and all the security ball-ache that comes with another Wordpress based site,  Behance is looking useful.

 

 

  

Edited October 6, 2022 by Ouroboros

[Advertisement]

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

[marchyman]

On 10/5/2022 at 8:37 AM, mirekti said:

What do people do nowadays, everyone is on Lightroom cloud or moved to C1?

Moved on to C1.  Then I got fed up with their poor (IMHO) support of metadata and the inability to search large catalogs quickly or at all in some cases. I went back to lightroom.  But not the cloud version.  I use Lightroom Classic.

With recent changes it is almost as good in editing features as C1.  An added benefit is that the 9.99/mo cost is cheaper that what I was paying to keep C1 up to date.  I also can edit grayscale images (can't do that in C1) and images smaller than 512x512 pixels.  Admittedly, it is rare that I want to do that, but have some 512x384 images from the '90s in my catalog that need to be revisited once in a great while.

[Anbaric]

5 hours ago, M11 for me said:

I think that its a pitty to have that attitude. Since there is the new subscription model we get lots of new improvements. Just everything included. Plus you have photoshop. Then once a moth you get your credit card charged without ever doing somthing. You have many advantages and just because you hear „subscription“ you say no to it? You just harm yourself.

Just something else comes to my mind: Are you aware how many new features were added to LR Classic during the last 12 moths? Its amazing how much this tool developes. 

If you edit heavily, and used to buy every version of LR or PS and loved the new features, I can see the attraction. But if you are just using the software as a tool for raw development and a bit of colour and contrast adjustment and cropping, and rarely bothered upgrading in the pre-rental days, many of the 'improvements' may not matter at all, and you are in effect paying for the same thing month after month for your entire photogaphic life (which of course suits Adobe perfectly well).

Personally I would try the workaround Adam suggests to get the profile and see how I got on with LR6 before getting on the subscription treadmill. After all, Adobe used to tout DNG as a universal format that should largely do away with the need for forced upgrades. I would only move to CC if I were sure it had some features that made it genuinely worthwhile that I couldn't get with the non-subscription alternatives. 'Worthwhile', of course, varies with the individual photographer.

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Anbaric said:

If you edit heavily, and used to buy every version of LR or PS and loved the new features, I can see the attraction.

I think the term 'edit heavily' is rather biased in the context you give. Editing is firstly choosing the photographs you want to present to the wider world. Getting rid of 99 out of a 100 photos is editing heavily and very good editing which should be applauded. It shows an eye. But perhaps you want to include fine adjustments to mean 'edit heavily'? Many photographers will have photographs they've spent hours over getting perfect, and yet a casual viewer wouldn't see the immediate difference between that image and the original .dng file. So don't denigrate 'edit heavily', it is what makes photography a craft or even an art, you start editing by looking through the viewfinder, don't cut off it off at the knee after you get home.

Edited October 6, 2022 by 250swb

[Anbaric]

36 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I think the term 'edit heavily' is rather biased in the context you give. Editing is firstly choosing the photographs you want to present to the wider world. Getting rid of 99 out of a 100 photos is editing heavily and very good editing which should be applauded. It shows an eye. But perhaps you want to include fine adjustments to mean 'edit heavily'? Many photographers will have photographs they've spent hours over getting perfect, and yet a casual viewer wouldn't see the immediate difference between that image and the original .dng file. So don't denigrate 'edit heavily', it is what makes photography a craft or even an art, you start editing by looking through the viewfinder, don't cut off it off at the knee after you get home.

I don't think heavy editing (in the sense of adjustment, not selection in or out of the camera) is necessarily a negative thing. For some applications it's absolutely necessary. But not everyone is interested in the ever more elaborate image manipulation tools that the subscriptions seem to pay for. For example, while it would be fun to play with the things on this page and they are technically very impressive, I have no practical use for any of them:

https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/photoshop/using/neural-filters-list-and-faq.html

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 minutes ago, Anbaric said:

I don't think heavy editing (in the sense of adjustment, not selection in or out of the camera) is necessarily a negative thing. For some applications it's absolutely necessary. But not everyone is interested in the ever more elaborate image manipulation tools that the subscriptions seem to pay for. For example, while it would be fun to play with the things on this page and they are technically very impressive, I have no practical use for any of them:

https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/photoshop/using/neural-filters-list-and-faq.html

I don’t use any of those.  But the difference between LR6 and the current version of LR Classic is still massive, especially regarding the availability and flexibility of local controls that before one needed to migrate to PS to achieve.

I can’t recall a single worthy fine print that I’ve made since the 80’s, darkroom or ‘lightroom”, that didn’t require at least some subtle fine tuning, some of which required more time than one might expect. Less can be more, but only when the tools can deal with the required nuances.

I’ve reprinted some of my favorite pics from 10 years ago, and the improvements resulting from more recent processing engines and tools are evident to me.

As far as cost, I find $120 a year silly to even discuss considering all I’ve spent on camera gear, printing gear, computer/software expenses, framing and storage supplies, etc.  Much more than I’ve spent on my very fine car.  But it’s all been worth it to me, as my ultimate photo product at the end of the day is a wonderful print of a worthy pic.  Nobody knows or cares how much, or how little, work was involved… shooting or processing.

Jeff

 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Jeff S

[250swb]

10 hours ago, Anbaric said:

I don't think heavy editing (in the sense of adjustment, not selection in or out of the camera) is necessarily a negative thing. For some applications it's absolutely necessary. But not everyone is interested in the ever more elaborate image manipulation tools that the subscriptions seem to pay for. For example, while it would be fun to play with the things on this page and they are technically very impressive, I have no practical use for any of them:

https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/photoshop/using/neural-filters-list-and-faq.html

Nobody except the designers, and maybe not even those, use or understand all of Photoshop. I use similar tools in Photoshop that I used in the darkroom, but I want those tools to be as good as possible. But it means I don't use 95% of what Photoshop could do. It's about being able to make the best photograph you can, the one you had in your minds eye when you pressed the shutter. So for example I heavily edit dust spots out of my photographs, I heavily edit shadows and highlights if they are unbalanced by the process itself which is called dodging and burning, and I manipulate the tone of a B&W image, warm to cool, just as I would have in the darkroom by choosing a different make of paper and developer. The list could go on but 'edit' and 'manipulate' are not intrinsically dirty words, they are ancient traditional words in terms of photography.

However there is a trend in digital photography to treat doing as little as possible to an image as a badge of honour, the guy who spends two weeks shooting in Tibet but doesn't have the time to do any editing but still expects people to look at and applaud the photographs he can't be bothered to colour correct. It's an insult to the people who you expect to look at your photographs. And I think using 'editing heavily' as a pejorative term reinforces the idea that a lot of work can be excused by doing nothing. A heavy editing session could simply be looking at the photograph for an hour in Lightroom or Photoshop before deciding to press 'choose files'. If you look at some of the photos that get posted from digital Leica's especially there are genuinely some people who don't realise their histogram has both a white and a black spike at each end and not just the bunched up sludge of tones in the middle, and those people really should be encouraged to do some heavy editing.

Edited October 7, 2022 by 250swb

[Ouroboros]

17 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

 

One other benefit of basic CC subscription that no one ever seems to mention is the included access to Behance.  I've just started exploring it and see it as a potential viable and easy option for publishing a portfolio online.  When the time comes that I no longer need a full-blown Squarespace website, hosting costs, plus the expense of plug-in licensing etc and all the security ball-ache that comes with another Wordpress based site,  Behance is looking useful.

 

 

  

Further to this, I do like the simplicity of the Adobe Portfolio website templates.  Functionally similar to very watered-down Squarespace templates but perfectly  good enough for a no-frills online portfolio presence and some basic scope for customising the templates.

With the basic CC subscription of £9.99 pm you are allowed up to five websites and you can use custom domain names.  Not bad at all for a freebie with no SEO worries, hosting fees, updates or security issues to bother with.

It took me less than half an hour of looking around a template, making a start by adding some images and content, linking one of my own domain names and getting it online. 

I'll definitely grow it: www.stevewalton.co.uk

 

Edited October 7, 2022 by Ouroboros

[PeterGA]

LR ( Adobe ) makes it easier to make your own profiles and presets than C1 - that is what I find the major difference between the two programs. The cost of the Adobe LR/PS bundle subscription is a bargain.

[jaapv]

This discussion seems to skirt around the fact that postprocessing is about half the work needed to extract the quality that your camera offers.  Somebody buys an M11 -fine, it shows that here is a photographer who appreciates quality. But then to use software that is as dated as the original Nikon D70 is  hard to understand. The processing algorithms have -obviously- improved and changed beyond measure since LR6, and keep improving all the time, hence the subscription model - it allows Adobe to keep your software up to date continuously instead of offering huge - and expensive - updates every now and then.

[Adam Bonn]

When someone asks ‘hey everyone should I buy the new camera or save money and get the old one?’ people always point out that the new one doesn’t make the old one worse, and that the new features are only relevant if you need and will use them.

This is to a certain extent true of software too.

As my newest camera is an M10 (fully supported by LR6) I was really reluctant to switch to a subscription model just to have what I had already

But a computer migration forced my hand and as a heavy LR user I quickly realised that I wasn’t so much paying for a bunch of supported cameras that I didn’t own, but I was paying for better tools and a (far) more stable performance which took away the pain of a subscription model completely.

My LR6 was (iirc) £120 in 2017, so that’s peanuts amortised across the number of months I used it for (about 45), and if adobe offered their current app standalone for 120 (with no updates) I’d probably go for it…

But they don’t, so if one wants or needs the latest and greatest then you pays the money

I think there’s also a bit of a mental block (at least for me) about what exactly we’re happy to pay subscription for… no one expects gym, cable, netflix etc usage for a one off payment, we accept it as a service.. like it or not SAAS is a thing now.

[jaapv]

People also point out that the newer camera will (or should  ) yield higher quality results.

[Adam Bonn]

6 minutes ago, PeterGA said:

LR ( Adobe ) makes it easier to make your own profiles and presets than C1

Not to be argumentative… but I’m not convinced that’s true… marketing aside C1 styles and Adobe presets are basically the same thing with the same usage case (save current settings as) and RE profiles, C1 allows you to make icc profiles with little more than a save as command while to create an adobe dcp profile you need external software (that ‘enhanced profile’ thing you can make in PS piggy backs off of the standard adobe profile)

IMO C1 is has better profile and colour tools than adobe, but adobe has better search and catalog tools… and that’s the rub in my view… you spend far longer using these apps to manage and edit photos than you do creating profiles and presets so C1’s advantage is fleeting.

Obviously though, C1 has its fans (it was my first serious RAW editor back in v7 and I used for many years) and if one gels with the software then one enjoys using it.

But for me I prefer adobe… not just personal stuff (like the layout etc) or the tools or the superior asset management, but I like the fact that Leica shoots DNG which is the format that adobe invented and their entire pipeline is DNG based. The phrase ‘hand in glove’ springs to mind… for the other RAW apps DNG is a subsidiary format favoured by low volume OEMs which (IMHO) is one of the reasons that C1 struggles with Leica metadata and lens profiles etc… adobe is just natively tuned to work well with all that stuff, they invented it (within the context of a DNG pipeline)

[Adam Bonn]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

People also point out that the newer camera will (or should  ) yield higher quality results.

Generally the wisdom is that it’s the photographer no? 😅

[jaapv]

And the photographer chooses the tools.😛

[Adam Bonn]

15 hours ago, Anbaric said:

Adobe used to tout DNG as a universal format that should largely do away with the need for forced upgrades

Well it is… but the OEM would need to embed a profile in there (which they tend too) for DNG to open universally and not all profiles are created equally.

Also things like lens support or pixel binning might not work so well with a RAW that’s only using an embedded DNG profile and no camera support

But DNG really scores from yesteryear when a new camera would come out and the RAW app wouldn’t support it right away (the main players are quite on top of it these days)

[Adam Bonn]

42 minutes ago, jaapv said:

And the photographer chooses the tools.😛

I’m not convinced that my M10 pictures would be any more er less 😂 shit if I bought an M11

Seriously though, LR IMHO has evolved into a FAR more capable tool than it was in LR6, closing (or exceeding) the gap to C1 with things like masking, colour grading, and operational speed, whilst still providing superior (to C1) asset management, with the added bonus of PS and with new model support that’s practically available on the day of the product release… and all for about the same cost as Netflix.. or less than gym membership.

IMHO It’s practically a no brainer

Edited October 7, 2022 by Adam Bonn

[jaapv]

Totally agree. Photoshop even more so. The latest bit of magic is Super Resolution for strong cropping. Have you tried it? Saves the cost of a 50 MP camera. 😂

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[PeterGA]

49 minutes ago, Adam Bonn said:

Not to be argumentative… but I’m not convinced that’s true… marketing aside C1 styles and Adobe presets are basically the same thing with the same usage case (save current settings as) and RE profiles, C1 allows you to make icc profiles with little more than a save as command while to create an adobe dcp profile you need external software (that ‘enhanced profile’ thing you can make in PS piggy backs off of the standard adobe profile)

IMO C1 is has better profile and colour tools than adobe, but adobe has better search and catalog tools… and that’s the rub in my view… you spend far longer using these apps to manage and edit photos than you do creating profiles and presets so C1’s advantage is fleeting.

Obviously though, C1 has its fans (it was my first serious RAW editor back in v7 and I used for many years) and if one gels with the software then one enjoys using it.

But for me I prefer adobe… not just personal stuff (like the layout etc) or the tools or the superior asset management, but I like the fact that Leica shoots DNG which is the format that adobe invented and their entire pipeline is DNG based. The phrase ‘hand in glove’ springs to mind… for the other RAW apps DNG is a subsidiary format favoured by low volume OEMs which (IMHO) is one of the reasons that C1 struggles with Leica metadata and lens profiles etc… adobe is just natively tuned to work well with all that stuff, they invented it (within the context of a DNG pipeline)

No argument from me  -  it all boils down to what a person has invested more time in getting used to and familiar with - so I should have said 'easier for me'.  I agree the library functionality of LR is easier to live with - I use LR and PS together but people can do the same with C1 AND PS.