RAW Software (Ricoh GX100, GRD*)

[7ian7]

Hey, thanks Wouter. I employ similar variations on that theme, but I'll retrace your method exactly next time I'm up against that type of thing.

Maggie, (I think it was you) selective sharpening impacts an image layer, so I avoid that until the very end of the process, even until after re-sizing.

Mitch, I can't wait to see what you come up with in Nambia. Hope it's going well.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[Mitch Alland]

Ian, Nambia was anything but a photographic trip and I've only posted two pictures on my flickr site' the rest were pictures of mine development and slag heaps: nothing of any inteterest.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[Bob Yanal]

This is principally directed at Maggie O, though of course I'd like to hear from anyone.

After an initial infatuation with LightZone, I've been mainly using Photoshop CS3 (special discount from my university). And I'm liking PS3 more and more.

I'm also invested in iPhoto, but have been toying with Bridge. What I'd especially miss about iPhoto is its "Web Gallery" function, though there's no reason I couldn't (somehow) use both.

If anyone has anything to share regarding Bridge and/or (versus) iPhoto, I'd like to hear it.

Bob Yanal
http://gallery.mac.com/ryanal#gallery

 

[gregg]

Well - after a week-long vacation, 1000s of images and five programs - I've finally placed an order for Lightroom.

Yes, it was twice what I really wanted to spend but on the positive:

1) Organize/Develop in the same interface
2) Clone images take up little space (C1-4 too)
3) An active module/styles development community
4) Web gallery output - flash
5) File Export (file, flickr, web, Photoshop)
6) Integration with Photoshop
7) Non destructive editing of JPGs
8) Selective color/tone control
9) Integrated keywording that works with the tagging recognition of my stock site and flickr. (no more exif editor or importing to Photoshop to add tags!)

Like others I really like LiteZone's tone control but I found that using LightRoom's histogram sliders gave me the same results.

There have been a lot of reviews done on these software applications so there probably isn't a need for another (although writing is one of my sources of income...)

Ultimately, which software to use is a pretty subjective decision. LightRoom "works" for the majority of my workflow, produces very consistent results, has the support of a huge company and user base behind it (i.e. has lots of incentive to improve), and integrates seamlessly with Photoshop CS for times when I need really localized control.

Capture One (4) did a great job at development as did LightZone. I never really liked SilkyPix's interface or its lack of a decent file browser. Capture One (4) crashed a lot and gave fatal errors on simple things like export for web. LightZone was slower than the rest, even when I pumped its memory allocation up to the maximum.

The last week of my daily photoblog, Project365, has all been processed with LightRoom and some pretty standard adjustments that take about 30 seconds per image. I've also gone back to some photo essays that were in desperate need of editing and have made quick work of those tasks.

Thanks to everyone for all the advice, tips and experience. Pay it forward and happy shooting.

 

[7ian7]

• I don't know, Mitch, images of mine development sound potentially very interesting.

• Bob, I HATE iPhoto. I feel like Apple is way too parental — seizing control of too many aspects of file and folder management that I'd rather it leave alone. Also, last I checked, it's import process impacts file integrity, just one more stage of compression I don't want or need.

Bridge, on the other hand, is turning out to be an awesome tool — it has evolved tremendously since I first tried it out a few versions ago. Lately I've been migrating my workflow over to Bridge from iView Media Pro, a magazine industry standard which I used to swear by, and Bridge is really great. It has seamless access to many serious features from each program in the entire CS3 design suite without actually having to launch the applications. Cool, and great for editing.

• Gregg, I know a lot of photographers who are thrilled with Lightroom. I personally haven't taken to it. I find that pretty much every image needs at least some "localized" work, so in the end, it is just one more stop on the way to the inevitable PhotoShop treatment. I've used it to create and then post some batch-processed contact sheets for clients, but I'm finding Bridge is just as good for that. I'm sure I'll press "submit reply" and five minutes later a situation will arise where Lightroom is the obvious solution, but so far that hasn't happened.

I've also experienced buggy behavior with C1v4, but I'm guessing PCs and Intel Macs can crunch those numbers with greater ease than my dual G5, even though it's a fast computer with a lot of RAM. I don't doubt Sean's or a number of other contributors here when they say it rocks, but so far I haven't experienced great enough discernible advantages when using it to get me to switch from ACR. That said, I'm open to using it — or anything else, on a case by case basis — when I'm not satisfied with what I'm getting from the odd, particularly problematic ACR conversion.

 

[Maggie O]

• Bob, I HATE iPhoto. I feel like Apple is way too parental — seizing control of too many aspects of file and folder management that I'd rather it leave alone. Also, last I checked, it's import process impacts file integrity, just one more stage of compression I don't want or need.

It does no such thing. You may not like how it handles file organization, but the files it imports are just fine, thank you.

 

[Maggie O]

Bob, iPhoto and Photoshop play very well together, FWIW. That's been my standard workflow now for over a year.

I like LightZone's tools and the way it handles RAW files from my D-Lux 3 (C1LE is still my preferred M8 DNG developer, tho'), but I only use it on the files I really want to tweak up just so. I'm not under time pressure, so I'm free to use whatever tool serves the image best. If I was on deadline again, things would be different.

 

[Maggie O]

Mitch and Cam, I think I'd pass up the latest version of LightZone. The preview window smells like ass and is pretty much useless. Some tools are faster, but some are slower, so there seems to be zero net gain in application speed.

 

[Mitch Alland]

Maggie, does that mean that the old preview window and tools stack on the side of it has been replaced by a new configuration? What is the difference?

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[Maggie O]

Maggie, does that mean that the old preview window and tools stack on the side of it has been replaced by a new configuration? What is the difference?

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

The styles stack has been moved down and the preview window is a mirror of the zone window on the RH side. The preview window changes as you mouse over each style. If you select a style, the undo command is the only way to remove the tool from the main window.

The mouseover preview also seems to have slowed down the program a bunch- I see the beachball of doom™ a lot now.

 

[Mitch Alland]

...If you select a style, the undo command is the only way to remove the tool from the main window...

This sounds like a complete disaster and a misunderstanding on the part of the program designers part of how photographers use LZ Styles: what was good about styles was that you could apply it to a picture somewhat similar in lighting to the one on which the Style was based, and could then edit the stack of Tools in the Style by unclicking a particular Tool, or changing it's opacity, or by editing the shape of the Region associated with that particular Tool. If LZ does not allow this type of editing of Styles, then one would do better to go back to PhotoShop!

Is my understanding correct? If it is, how can we put it forcefully to the makers of LZ that they have pretty much ruined one of the strongest points of their software?

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

 

[Maggie O]

Oh, the functionality of the tools and styles is the same, it's the previewing of the styles that is the change.

 

[7ian7]

Maggie, that's good to hear.

I haven't been using iPhoto for the past four versions, but that import stage definitely used to be more than a simple file read or even copy process. It made me uncomfortable. I've also heard about some plugins or widgets or apps of some sort that bypass iPhoto's file mgmt, but I'm gone already.

And yes, you should both come back to PS!

: )

Nite,
Ian

 

[Maggie O]

iPhoto makes a separate thumbnail on import and saves a new version of the file if you edit it. The original is always available in its own directory. Oh, and a lot has changed in the last four versions. You might even like it now.

I never left Photoshop. I just like LightZone better for some things. Horses for courses, wot?

 

[meilicke]

If I recall, you can tell iPhoto to leave your photos where they are, and it will point to them instead of copying them into it's own library. Aperture is the same way.

 

[Arch]

If I recall, you can tell iPhoto to leave your photos where they are, and it will point to them instead of copying them into it's own library. Aperture is the same way.

You recall correctly, meilicke. As default, it copies the files to the "don't-even try-to-touch" file package, but unchecking this in the preferences leaves the original file structure open for other editors, and keeps your archives safe for future changes in the software universe.

The iLife08 version of iPhoto is not a toy at all, in fact it has many qualities that its pricey competitors should learn from. The events, the handy skimming, the books, etc. I'm using Lightroom now, but I sort of miss these features.

For basic video editing, the iMovie08 in the same package, is as simple as it gets, really enjoyable.

 

[sizifo]

I've recently tried Lightroom, in addition to Aperture, which has been my main pp program so far, so will just say a word or two about my impressions.

- The default color conversions from Aperture and Lightroom are surprisingly similar, to the point that it's very difficult to find any distinction.
- The adjustment tools in Lightroom are better. I've not spent a lot of time investigating the tools available in Lightroom, but not in Aperture, but for sure the whole layout is more user friendly, and invites the user to fiddle with the sliders.
-The sharpening tool in Aperture are better, to my taste. Specifically I really like the sharpening tool that is a part of the raw adjustments (there is a second "edge sharpen tool"). Having said this, it's possible to get close in Lightroom, but it seems to take a lot more work.
-The default B&W conversion in Lightroom is better, for my taste. It's difficult to quantify this, but the look is closer to film B&W, unlike Aperture's which is a bit more harsh. Again, it's possible to come close to the Lightroom look, but it takes quite a bit of work.
-Lightroom is a lot faster.
-I like the nonlinear philosophy of aperture better, because one can pretty much do anything at any time, move things around add keywords. edit, etc. In lightroom it's necessary to stop what one is doing, switch modules. More generally, I simply like the style and look of aperture better, but that may well be because I'm used to it.
-The database part of Aperture seems superior. I love smart albums, the ease of tagging photos, and the ability to create as many versions as one wants of a photo, without copying the underlying file, which I don't think is possible in Lightroom.


These differences are very minor, and I certainly wouldn't switch to Lightroom on account of its advantages, and I would miss the "database" aspects of Aperture too much. Plus, Aperture 2.0 must be close, so it's probably wise to hang on.

Finally, let me mention that there does seem to be a problem in the Aperture raw conversion, in photos with point like light sources. For example reflections off water droplets. I've attached an example. The first is Aperture's conversion, and the second from Silkypix (Lightroom produces a very similar conversion). The aperture photo is definitely just doing something wrong to my eyes, that the other converters seem to avoid. I believe this was mentioned is some comparison of converters on the web, but I can't find it at the moment.

In any case, this problem occurs on a very small minority of photos that I take, and one can always use something else for the few problematic photos. Hopefully it gets fixed in version 2.0.

Finally, could I ask what the workflow of people using, say Silkypix, or a converter that doesn't act as a database, is? I mean, it's necessary to convert every image to tiff, and this takes up 40-60MB per photo, plus the original raw? Do you guys all have terabyte hard drives? Definitely not something for people, like me, who want to keep all their stuff on a laptop.

 

[7ian7]

Cool shot, poorly or successfully converted!

Anyway, the new iPhoto sounds like it has been greatly improved, whether or not I see any compelling reason for me to go back there, where my work is concerned. No question, Apple/Jobs embody visionary status, and the creative universe owes them heavy gratitude. Remember when "desktop publishing" was an exotic concept? : )

Regarding the books feature in iPhoto, Blurb is doing it for about the same price, but with arguably better, more consistent and predictable image reproduction. (This I learned after making about ten books through the Mac service). There are other companies popping up, all with better customer service — for this particular service — than Apple, like the one Michael Reichman from Luminous Landscape works with in Toronto.

I was up until 2am working on some pictures, and while it isn't perfect, Bridge is turning out to be a fantastic way for me to work (coming from iView Mediapro and also as an owner of Lightroom). I love the way camera raw settings can be applied and previewed across multiple images without ever opening ACR or PhotoShop, for instance. I have a feeling that Lightroom will eventually be integrated in to the mix, but so far I haven't really come across a problem where it was the only solution. Generally I don't step out of my routines unless I am forced to. Silly but true.