bolded 2: Now there is where we differ. I like nice, smooth renderings some of the time and I like grain at other times. For this recent Leica M-P photo, I added grain because, to my eye, it looks good that way:
With the A7, to my eye this is a grainless, typical ISO 1600 photo:
I still shoot with medium format occasionally, especially the SWC, and love its smooth grain too. But even there, sometimes a coarse-grained image is my preference and I jump up to Delta 3200 to get it:
(All three images rendered in LR, btw.)
The time I tested Topaz Detail, to my eye it made my photos look artificial. Decided not to buy it, or NIK, or any others.
But both of those notions are reach into the realm of aesthetic preferences and have little to do with camera capabilities.
I'm not in that much of a rush when I'm processing my work. And because I focus on getting it the way I want in the camera, processing is often a case of reading in the raw files, making a tweak to one typical image, and doing the same to all the others.
Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream1 Member(s) liked this post
A fabulous diamond trapped within a five-master rated Chinese puzzle box is not much to look at for the vast majority of people... ;-)
Godfrey that was one of the set backs to aperture... you have to do each photos PP individually and no real batch processing.
I do product photography as a part time job (being as I am retiree from a fortune 500 major corporation and just looking for things to stay busy) which has recently been a 5 day a week gig which my contracted customer pays by the pic.... time means money in this regard and it mostly studio work. Now this a7RII will never be used for this work assignment as I have other better suited camera bodies for this purpose. The a7rII is my NEX7 replacement for a carry in scenic camera. Time in PP mean nothing in this specific case so I can fiddle and futz in a single PP software to achieve my goals....... These are printed and sold for a completely different client base in a gallery type marketplace and their likes and dislikes are different than those of my product work.
I use camera systems and PP softwares/ plugins like golf clubs.... picking the strengths of the tools and using them to it's best applications to utilize these strengths and stay clear of it's weaknesses.
With LR, you can select a whole bunch of photos, turn on Auto-Sync, and then all your edits to the one photo are applied to all the others as well. You can also do one, then select a whole bunch of others as well, and apply the same edits to them. You can also do a bunch of edits, save it as a preset, then apply the preset to whatever photo you want. As a production system, if you shoot consistently and get most of your exposures close to the money, you can edit and output 10,000 photos as fast as your computer can process them. I never had a call for that many, but for some of the jobs I did, I had 300-400 exposures that the clients wanted to pick through. With LR it took just a short while to pump out all those proofs.
As a production system it's hard to beat. I have not yet figured out how to do this kind of stuff with C1, and it's FAR easier to apply changes to a lot of photos at once with LR than it was with PS batch operations.
need your advice then ....
I always had the impression then I applied changes to one photo in LR (I usually do this via "Copy Settings" of the one photo I edit and then select the other photos and do a "Paste Settings"), it copies ALL the settings as done for the first edit candidate and does for example not individually apply exposure etc.
This then reduces my initial edit I want to apply to all photos to a minimum like lens profiles and camera profiles etc, while I have to edit all photos individually for optimal exposure or WB.
Would that be different is I used Auto Sync or something else?
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks for your answer in advance!
C1 Pro 8 doesn't list specific Sony FE lens profiles in the lens correction tab. My understanding was that, if the tab listed "Manufacturer's Profile" as the profile, C1 was applying a specific lens profile for that FE lens. I have noticed that my files with the Zeiss Batis 25 and 85 lenses show "Manufacturer's Profile" in the lens correction tab. Is it possible that Phase has already included specific profiles for those non-Sony lenses?
I'm not sure I understand your question, Peter. But I think you're asking, "Does Auto Sync do something different from Copy Settings—Paste Settings?" It does nothing different. It simply applies the same adjustments to all the exposures selected, as if you had copied and pasted your settings one image at a time.
That's why the basic premise is to get the exposure and such as right as possible in the camera. Then all the adjustments, including exposure and tone curve, can be applied to all exposures at once. There are invariably a few photos that need a little bit of tweaking. I find most of the time I can do this in Quick Develop, selecting smaller groups of images. I only rarely work on one image at a time for more than a few seconds.
I've grown to like LR quite a bit over the past year or so, although I still have trouble accepting its 'modal' interface. A few other things are annoying too, like the need for 'synchronizing the folder' every time you add an image to it. Overall, it is very usable though.
Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........
if you add files to folders by importing them and telling LR where to put them, you don't need the synchronize folder command.
Like I said, the DAM capabilities of Aperture are superior to anything else but it falls behind in other areas and I don't like the idea of jumping from one program for cataloging and then use another for RAW conversion and then use PS or a plug-in for final work. That becomes too cumbersome.
Minor annoyances, but the current incarnation of LR does other things much better, so I have learned to live with it and like it.
Too much to list, let's just say I have a bad case of GAS.........
Even still it is my opinion that LR is more user friendly, tends to provide faster support/profiles, tends to be a lot more stable (although in fairness I haven't had many issues with C1P8,) and the pixel level results of LR + 3rd party external editors/plugins produces a comparable to superior final product in most cases. To each their own and choice is for us all good.
Priolite Ambassador | Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
http://www.iiinelsonimages.com1 Member(s) liked this post
As for C1 - it is as good as the raw processors from Hasselblad and Sinar I use all the time for camera specific raws that they were designed for and pretty useless for the real world stuff ( just like hasselblad and Sinars raw processors are ) which lazy photographers like me hate dealing with - filing, tagging, sorting and generally keeping somewhere...hence LR becomes a default...
How nasty of Apple to ditch Aperture - which was a nice programme to work with...just goes to show - don't fight Adobe...
Well I use Lr6 and NIK software and have been with Lr since version 2. I tried C1 and Aperture years ago and couldn't get to grips with them and the early version of Lr had sliders using a terminology that a Photographer coming from the age of film and the darkroom could understand (tis has no changed in later versions). I suppose I am too entrenched in the program to change now even if some other developers might offer some advantages in certain areas. On the whole Lr is a very powerful package and meets 99% of my needs. I alsouse NIK silverefex Pro, ColorEfex pro and Dfine (can be good for getting rid of banding in high ISO shots)
I shoot raw exclusively and use lightroom as raw processor.
I have created individual import defaults for all my camera's to have a consistent starting point for all my camera's, so I mostly have to do some tweaking which is not much different from a little tweaking to out of camera jpg's, but with much more flexibility to correct white-balance and over/under exposure.
I also didn't like the out of the box colours Lightroom provided and experimented with some imported camera colour profiles that I found on the web. This improved the situation a bit but the final step that made in "click" was creating my own colour profiles using an X-rite colour checker and the Adobe dng colour profile editor. Now I'm happy with the results
Normally the denoise facility in lightroom is sufficient for my needs, but for extreme cases I use Noise Ninja.
Only steps I do in photoshop is a final sharpening for web viewing (Photokit sharpener) and add a 1 pixel wide white border.
I tried both DXO and C1 but found that within the 30 day trial period my lightroom conversions were better then what I could achieve with those programs (noise, colour and general rendering). I must admit that Lightroom in that regard has an unfair advantage, since I've been using that since the free beta version of LR1, so I'm much better at home in there then in any of the other converters.
I'm sure better people can achieve better results with any other converter (or LR for that matter), but in the end I'm a firm believer that the best raw converter is the one you know best.
I always love the LR vs C1 vs everything else conversation.
Owning all of them myself, unfortunately no piece of software will make me a better photographer.
Just keeping it real.