Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 58 of 58

Thread: RAW Software (Ricoh GX100, GRD*)

  1. #51
    Mitch Alland
    Guest

    Re: RAW Software (Ricoh GX100, GRD*)

    Quote Originally Posted by Maggie O View Post
    ...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/[email protected]/

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Software (Ricoh GX100, GRD*)

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

  3. #53
    7ian7
    Guest

    Re: RAW Software (Ricoh GX100, GRD*)

    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

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Maggie O's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Standards Are Down All Over
    Posts
    3,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Software (Ricoh GX100, GRD*)

    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?

  5. #55
    meilicke
    Guest

    Re: RAW Software (Ricoh GX100, GRD*)

    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.

  6. #56
    Arch
    Guest

    Re: RAW Software (Ricoh GX100, GRD*)

    Quote Originally Posted by meilicke View Post
    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.

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    549
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Software (Ricoh GX100, GRD*)

    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.

  8. #58
    7ian7
    Guest

    Re: RAW Software (Ricoh GX100, GRD*)

    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •