srika

And that's a part of the beauty of it. After reading what you wrote, I think I like the 2nd one too. :P But, I like the colors of the 3rd pic - the purple stands out more, etc. About his face, it's very subjective. Here is another shot that shows a more even skintone, from the first PP:

http://www.delobbo.com/gallery2/v/11...G_082.jpg.html

It looks like his face might be redder, but in the first pic above, its more exaggerated because of the I don't see it as "right" or "wrong", really. I mean, the 2nd pic is what I sent for the site, 5 months ago. And it was fine. Looking at some more pics, I think his face is really redder than his arms. So, evening them out gives a false sense of reality, I guess its kind of like airbrushing. Which happens all the time.

Sure you should send some of yours over so we can see. I love it that there is an infinite amount of things you can do to a picture.

moeronn

I've been avoiding this thread, because I didn't want to think about buy/learning new software. But the more I read (I've only skimmed most posts, so far) the more interested I am. I'll probably get the academic version through my wife.

srika

wtf.. editing posts ftl.. this is what I meant to say:

moeronn

Has anyone tried Lightroom on JPEGs? I know that it would be better to start out with RAW, but I'm wondering about negative scans that are all JPEGs.

srika

I've only used it on JPG's... not quite ready for 13MB RAW's yet..

moeronn

That's actually very good to know. Thanks.

BTW, You could always drop the resolution down on the 5D and shoot in RAW - especially for shots that are going to get resized for the web. Just a thought.

srika

Sounds promising but if I'm reading the manual right, there is only one output filesize for RAW.. maybe someone (Billiam) can confirm that.

moeronn

I just looked at the specs on dpreview, and it looks like you're right. It makes sense, yet it doesn't.

srika

I think it does make sense - since its sensor data, there is no adjustable "size"?

Billiam

Glad you guys already figured it out. I've actually never contemplated shooting anything other than full-up, full frame RAW with my 5D.

srika

i imagine i will be on the RAW boat sometime soon...

srika

hmm.... i think im gonna shoot a roll of RAW tonight...

srika

ok so this is a total n00b question.... but can I edit RAW files directly in Lightroom? If so, how? Using that pic bridge thing or something? What all software do I need? Is there a way to do it without installing the Canon software?

srika

oops answered my own question.... I did something crazy.... I tried it myself. dang, didn't know you could put em straight into LR.. pretty nutty. Damn.. only about 80 pics on a 1GB..

Billiam

At its core, Lightroom is "just" Adobe Camera Raw 4 + cataloging & indexing.

guia x

Hehe. Lightroom's main thing is processing RAW files. lol.

Here is a before and after post processing I recently done in Lightroom. It's not really a great photo to begin with. I was just snapping some quick snapshots when I picked the car up and the sun was almost completely set. It's amazing how Lightroom just come up with extra detail out of nowhere. Aside from adjusting the white balance, I used the Exposure, Fill Light, Recovery, Vibrance, and Tone Curve sliders. As well as some direct Saturation and Luminance targeting.

Before
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/pgayatin/449137799/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/214/449137799_f3de935d2d_o.jpg" width="600" height="400" alt="My 2006 Acura RL (Unprocessed)" /></a>

After
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/pgayatin/449137795/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/247/449137795_ea64dfd842_o.jpg" width="600" height="400" alt="My 2006 Acura RL" /></a>

Anyway, so am I heading in the right direction? I know I still have along way to go and alot to learn. I'm kinda happy with the results but I think it could be better. It's different with portraits and I want to show something with skin tones but most of my photos is of my baby and I remember people advising against posting photos of our kids. So this will have to do.

srika

Well, you're headed in the right direction but the top-weighted lighting on the car is making it tough. If just that part was more balanced, the shot would look a lot better.

Billiam

I agree with Srika. The top lighting on the car is overly bright compared to the remainder of the photo. FYI, this is a good example of what I was talking about in my original opinion post. An image like guia's car shot could really use localized editing. It's not really possible to do that sort of thing in Lightroom.

srika

I played with your shot a little, try upping Recovery and Fill Light to combat the lighting issue. Also bring down "highlights".. You can kinda "save" that pic by doing that.

srika

and oh yeah - nice car.

srika

I need to make a correction here, regarding doing a few pics for a specific purpose. No matter what the pic, I start with LR. And, I get the picture looking the best I can in LR. I then do some fine-tuning in PSP, depending on the application/need. If its a ~100-200 picture event, I will only bring a few into PSP for further editing, again depending on whether the pic needs more work, or if I just want to get a little more artsy with a certain pic because I think it'll look better. But, LR does the major bulk of work.

srika

Hey I know the feeling. That was me just a little more than 6 months ago. :P Even though I think you "should" try to get the picture looking as good as you can the moment you take it, I also think that no matter how good it looks, you can always get it to look better with PP - no exceptions! Yes, it does require some $$ and learning along with more effort and work.. but I think the process combined with the end product is so rewarding that at this point I can't fathom how I ever didn't PP.

ChodTheWacko

It's a little late now, but I would have shot at a slightly different angle at the
car, to get rid of that orange cone.

guia x

How's This?
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/pgayatin/450435143/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/218/450435143_422984387d_o.jpg" width="600" height="400" alt="My 06 Acura RL (Edit)" /></a>

I didn't lighten the dark areas any further as I wanted to have more contrast but I'm not sure if it's enough. I would love to see what you did. If you still have it.

I actually had your post in mind while processing this. That's what makes Lightroom so great is because it complements PS very well. It saves alot of time and if a shot needs further adjustments, you can send it over to PS and tweek it some more.

Thanks


Yeah but all I was doing was taking quick snapshots before I left the dealer. I was not really thinking of composition (but I should have) since I was inching to leave. Although this one just turn out better than I had expected with the Acura sign nicely visible. I took the cone out using Lightroom's Clone tool in my new edit of the photo above.

ChodTheWacko

It's just my style I suppose, but the first thing for me when shooting a pic
(or even postprocessing I suppose), is to look at everything in the frame and
say, 'do I want that in the picture'. If it adds to the picture, it stays in. If it distracts, it gets pulled in.

I also look at the 'boundary', so to speak, and ask if it adds to add more of that. Like for a beach picture, it's usually more sky/sand/water. Usually adjusting spacing of items within the frame.

Should I bother making comments on lightroom, or is this thread now a
postprocessing thread? It would be nice to keep them separate, unless
the comments on how to use the lightroom controls specifically to post process.
Otherwise perhaps I'll start another thread.


I do like a LOT how you rotate the picture to the zoom window when you crop (versus in Adobe camera raw, where you rotate the zoom window to the picture).

It would be nice if the crop tool was modified so you could crop/level against
a zoomed image.

ChodTheWacko

I'm just curious, to guia x (who I think post processes hundreds and hundreds of pictures at a time), how often do you get the upsidedown 'Out of memory' error?

You know, the one where you can't view the image, and the screen says 'out of memory' in upsidedown (!) letters.

I get it once or twice a day, and have to restart LR to get it to go away. Annoying, but not a huge deal - not twice a day anyway.

guia x

I do the same thing. You are suppose to look at the entire frame before shooting. It's just this time I was just trying to take shots of the moment and not worry about composition because no matter what I would have done there would always be something in the way. Like the MDX next to my car causing an ugly distracting reflection.

Anyway, it's still about Lightroom. I was just asking for critiques on my work in Lightroom to see how I'm doing. Whether Lightroom is helping me or not. I guess it might be better to start another thread on post processing where we post before and after shots and have everyone critique or work. It'll help us noobs see what direction we are heading. Showing people without the "eye" maybe giving us a false sense of accomplishment. People here are more knowledgable as to what is correct or not. I'll start a thread later on it if you already haven't.


No I don't get the 'Out of memory' error. I do have 3GB of RAM though and I do experience some slowing down when I use it for a long time and when I use it along with Photoshop. Sometimes it goes almost to a freezing halt and that's when I reboot my whole computer. It might be my computer as it did it before when I used Photoshop alot.

srika

Well yesterday I shot a gig of RAW. And, I can easily see the difference in how LR behaves with these files. The effect of the sliders is smoother, and there is definitely more resolution and smoother dynamic when altering the parameters. However, the impact on noise was not near as good as I was expecting. In fact, it wasn't much different than JPG. After processing the set and exporting to JPG, the final product was not noticeably different than the straight JPG's. I will post some samples tomorrow in the club thread, would like to hear what you think of em.

And I don't think PP talk is off-topic in here, as long as i has something to do with LR. We don't have a general PP thread, do we? Maybe we need one.

And, I have never seen an Out of Memory error in LR. I would estimate I have processed about 6000 pictures with it, individually. My main computer is a C2D 2.0 laptop with 1GB and a 7200 rpm HD.

srika

Alos, I have noticed that LR is sluggish with one of my other computers, a 2.53GHz desktop with 1gb and 7200rpm - however I think this computer is due for a reformat and I am quite sure that is a major cause of the slowdown. I will be doing that soon. I have XP Pro on both computers. LR is very quick on the C2D - thats pretty much the only computer I do PP on.

srika

ooh wait a minute. I don't use LR to catalog my pix. I only have maybe 60 pics loaded into it at a time, tops. Usually 30-40. And these are 1800x1200 JPGs. But I had 50 RAWs in it today and it was fine. Do people import their entire catalog into LR and leave it there like, all the time? If so, I can see how that could very well could give you memory errors.

badboy

Yes, that's the point. LR should be able to handle your entire collection of photos. That's because it does not open every single photo while the program is running. It only stores a pointer to the photo that is stored on the harddrive, and a small preview jpeg which can be seen in the filmstrip. This is one of the major selling points with lightroom, because other programs actually store real working copies of the photo in the program, which can take up alot of memory.

srika

Call it personal preference but damn, I would not in a million years import my entire catalog into LR at once, regardless of how its "supposed" to handle em. Much rather prefer working on them in groups. Even if it only uses pointers, there still has to be some kind of "cache" file or history file that tells it what files are loaded and what order they're in.

badboy

Agreed. I wouldn't store all my photos in LR at the same time either.
I just know that adobe designed LR so that if someone wanted, they could do that. There are all kinds of things you can do in the library module to select the pics you want to work with from your collection. So for people who do like to store a LOT of photos in LR at one time, it should be easy to work with them.

svtmike

I have mine in there (experimenting with it after using Elements for cataloging). I have over 8000 pictures, mostly family snapshots, that really are pretty poorly organized. It is pretty sluggish with that, much more so than Elements on the same machine.

My impressions so far: Elements is superior for tagging/cataloging - vastly from a speed point of view, incrementally from an ease of use point of view. Lightroom kicks Elements ass in terms of PP/workflow support.

Big complaints about Lightroom's import of Elements catalog - it didn't maintain stacks already done in Elements, and it didn't retain associations between files and their edited versions.

Billiam

LR uses a known database engine and XML info in the sidecar XMP files for storing it's info. There really is no giant cache file that it ever deals with. I also have pretty much my entire photo collection imported into LR and I think the databse was only about 8 or 10 MB. The only things that really chew up space are the preview images that you're actually looking at while in the UI.

srika

Well that sounds pretty damn efficient. Maybe I should try it out.. :P

and if Billiam does it, its gotta be pretty reliable.

Billiam

I haven't exactly beat on Lightroom that much so don't take my experiences for more than they're worth. Even so, the beauty of Lightroom is that it doesn't ever touch your original files so even if it should go to hell in a handbasket for some reason, your original work should always be safe.

ChodTheWacko

If I get out voted, then that's fine, but I come to this thread to learn about lightroom, and how people are using it, and how it is different from other tools they use.

This thread could get pretty huge as people keep using lightroom, so I think looking at a particular pic and debating if it should be brighter/darker/whatever should be kept to a minimum.

Unless for some reason the adjustments are things you can only do/do easier with Lightroom controls.


I haven't imported all previous pictures (yet), but when you import, you import into
the database. So you are accumulating all pictures looked at to date, which is more
than your current set.

My last batch had about 400 raw file imports, 2 gig of memory.
I thought i read that it was a handle leak issue, but who knows.


Then you are missing out on one of the possibilities of Lightroom - a cataloging tool. I've always intended to start a separate thread on what programs people are using to do the following (fairly common) operations:

1) Show me every waterfall picture I've ever taken, (if I'm looking for a certain pic.)
2) Show me all the '5 star' pictures I've ever taken, for my digital picture frame or something.

Those two need to work for pictures archived to DVDs for it to be useful. Not sure
if Lightroom handles that, but you can see the benefits of loading all pictures into one db.


Not sure about other programs, but Adobe Camera Raw does the same thing for RAWS. For jpegs - I don't know if any programs beside lightroom (including photoshop) will do this.

When I back up pictures, I tend to back them up in directories, one for each trip/event, perhaps with subdirectories for day. So I would be exporting my settings to disk in xmp files, so that they are stored along with the pictures.

One thing I do not quite understand, with Lightroom's setup, is how you do disaster recovery. You can reinstall Lightroom, and back up the settings database, but isn't it going to barf all over you unless you also restore all your pictures to the previous directories? It certainly hates it when you rename a directory.

srika

That is pretty nice. If I get a desktop later on, I think I will try it. For now, my main purpose for LR is individual picture PP.

srika

How much RAM does it take up if you have like 8000 pics loaded? Right now I have 140 loaded, and its taking up 106MB??