Moose expressed:
> It would be interesting to see a comparison.
I'll chase it back down and see what I can do. The problem is that
I've got so much production going right now that I may not return to
the folder until winter. Last night was pretty typical. I shot around
400 images.
> Perhaps your 11 is my 7? ;-)
Nah. My 11 is pretty much 11. But the "HDR Mode" is getting a bit much
for me and I might enter "Velvia Mode" for a bit. In the new house
I'll actually be able to set some film processing stuff back up and
I'll shoot the OMs with vigor.
> I would phrase that as "I can . . .", or "One may . . .", because I can't.
> :-) I imagine I could learn to, but can't imagine why I would want to leave
> a tool I know intimately for a new learning curve. I'm such an innocent in
> LR that I had to scratch my head to figure out how to open Jim's Beechcraft
> photo in LR. Is it true that one may not just open an image into LR without
> importing it?
LOL, well, it's the simple things that confound a person the most.
Bridge is good for that, Lightroom is not.
DPS (Digital Photography School) summarizes the editing differences
pretty well: "...masks work differently in Lightroom than in
Photoshop. In Photoshop, the adjustment is applied to the area that
isn’t covered by the mask. In Lightroom, the adjustment is applied to
the area covered by the mask."
You paint over, or apply a circle or gradient to the image and then
tell it what to do with it. The bulk of the color, tone, saturation
and clarity sliders are available for this adjustment tool. If I use
the adjustment brush, I can use that to create a "mask" of sorts that
has the standard PS selection tools (color like, flow, feather,
etc.,). If you over paint, you can easily subtract bits of the mask
away. But most of the time, I work with circles and make smaller
adjustments with them and stack multiples of them up on the image in
different sizes and placement. Create one, duplicate, move, tweak.
I know it goes against your mode of thinking, but LR's adjustments are
more "darkroom-like". My biggest complaint with digital editing,
especially of B&W images, is creating an effective dodge and burn. In
the darkroom, I can stick my hand in the light for a couple of seconds
and lighten up an area without even thinking. In an editor, it just
doesn't seem to work as well. It's not as organic. But Lightroom keeps
getting better and better with the adjustment tools and they seem to
be getting gentler than before. I think that has to do with the way
that Lightroom reaches back and reconverts the image with as much as
it can do during the conversion process with the adjustments when you
create an output file. But my technique is also improving. Multiple
adjustments, each barely visible, duplicated, resized and stacked, is
more friendly to the final image.
In all fairness, it's only been in the last six months that I've
finally gotten a handle on Lightroom adjustments to the point where I
can satisfactorily avoid PS and the layers.
Last night was a bit tough because the lighting was very harsh. I did
many bracketed shots (all tripod stabilized, and remote triggered) to
capture the extreme dynamic range. I processed a couple of images that
didn't get posted on the website, but in Facepalm. They're just single
images from the HDR set that I didn't have time to do anything else
with. The 6D has very wide dynamic range and with extensive
highlight/shadow recovery, the "need" for HDR stacks is diminished,
but not eliminated. These, last night, are ones that I'll glady
revisit on a cold, dark, wintry evening
> Actually, about the only time I object to your slider bender images is when
> the horizon line has a halo and/or sky through trees is blacked out. Things
> soooo easily avoided in PS.
I've gotten a lot better about that, but once in a while...
We've had this discussion a few years back, but you tend to have
"California Eyes" where there is no humidity, bright sun, and high
contrast (N-2) scenes. It's the Ansel Adams "look", only in color.
(not a criticism, just an observation). A hazy Iowa scene (as it
really is) makes for a pretty dull image. There is a desire to make
sure that the histogram hit's 0% and 100%. But that's not always the
correct thing to do. Here in Alaska, I'm tempted to do the same thing
and I HAVE been doing the same thing. Once in a while, though, I just
want a gentle picture that speaks with a hushed voice. Alas, I don't
think I've actually seen a picture that warranted that treatment yet.
;) Alaska is the visual equivalent of going to a rock concert where
the sound system is cranked up to 130dB. Even a drab and dreary day
demands your attention.
I might challenge myself...
Nah...
Who wants to make Alaska look like Iowa?
I met the "artist in residence" photographer last night. He was out
stalking critters with a big honkin Nikon with 200-400
F-wider-than-a-pie lens. We'll get together soon. ANYWAY, a funny
thing happened on the way to and from my spot where I photographed
last night. The entire trail was lined with flowers in full bloom.
Beautiful! Do you think that I actually stopped and photographed a
single flower? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...... Yeah right...
AK Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|