Mike FL: FWIW:I'm not sure about the plastic bags thing because Panasonic suggests "...Do not leave in contact with rubber or plastic bags." noticed after I bought a Pana couple years ago.
BTW:I put my lenses in plastic bag for years, and they are seems ok so far. May be I should not.
She definitely did not recommend storing your gear in sealed plastic bags long-term. Only for when changing to and from extreme environments.
HawaiiVolcanoes: This article is meant to get attention..nothing more...sooo you've succeeded, this time. I believe that this article is short-sighted and irresponsible. You keep shooting with whatever you please..and I will continue to shoot with my 85 1.2L and 5DmkIII and amuse myself at the end of each day with a glass of rum, my images on my 27" iMac...and the ramblings of another so-called "photographer" that for some reason thinks that his opinion matters...all of these crummy little Pen Cameras and Mirror-less this and that cameras are meant to draw people away from Cellphones...Amen
This article is an opinion piece. Barnaby Britton's actions and reasoning don't mesh precisely with the way I make pictures, but I still respect the effort he has gone to in producing this article.
It is articles like this that make DPR such a rich and entertaining site.
arscii: Call me when Lightroom supports layers. Until that time it's being deliberately crippled by Adobe to protect Photoshop revenues.
Lightroom is a product for photographers. Photoshop (with its layers and other image-manipulation trickery) is a tool for graphic designers. There's no conspiracy here, only a misunderstanding of target markets.
justyntime: Much ado about nothing. HDR way overdone. People nowadays seem to forget what the canvas of photography is: it´s light! But there is no light left in this scene - as there is no shadow. In "Day 2" there is something like atmosphere retained, whereas in "Day 3" it´s successfully extinguished by PP.
Looking forward to reading your article ;-)
Nikonworks: Doesn't work for me.
Your 'collages' are like serving good coffee in a Mickey Mouse shaped cup.
The cup distracts you from the taste of the coffee in the cup.
The best for regular panos is ICE.
One of its best features is the ability to even out exposures from frame to frame,unlike your exposures which have adjoining frames with significant exposure variations which make for even more distractions for viewers of your collages.
My first thought upon viewing your collages was "This is the work of a very lazy shooter".
This article describes a collage, not stitching. It's a highly creative and artistic way of melding multiple images, nothing to do with mathematical algorithm based programs like ICE and Hugin.
The "work of a very lazy shooter" comment shows you've totally missed the point of this article. And probably not read it either; see step 4: fine tuning "This stage can take hours, but as with anything creative, there's no right or wrong way to do it." Nothing lazy about this. If you want to be lazy, do a stitched pano.
Many in the fine arts sneer at photographers as not "real" artists and lacking genuine creativity. You've just proved their point.
keltos: I use the open source program Hugin to do my panoramas/collages
a really great tool !
I read this article thinking "that's cool, like to try that some time". But as an amateur I can barely justify the price of Lightroom, don't want to buy Photoshop Elements, and PS CS is out of the question!
You talking about Hugin (good program, a little buggy but works well for me 90% of the time) got me thinking about using open source to achieve what Barney Britton's doing here. It's obvious! The GIMP. Thanks buddy.
Dan4321: A printer? How about a review of the 5d3 or the latest olympus u4/3 (forgot the name). Something people actually use -- I haven't used a printer for photography in the last 5 years and I honestly only know one photographer who still makes prints, out of around 50.
There's more to photography than cameras.
AndyML: It's worth noting that Adobe has modified their end-user license agreement to allow commercial use for their student/teacher pricing. That means that if you have a .edu email address, you can buy a copy at $79 and use it for your photography business. This is a big deal since there are a LOT of people with .edu email addresses or other means to show affiliation with a school.
That's useful intel thanks!
thanasaki: Thanks for the very good review on LR4However it is a pitty that LR4 leaves the proven WinXP plattform and even WinXP 64bit version.As I heve read in this review, only few has changed in the real photographic "lightroom" process and many "features" added in the "photo album" section. I love LR because -up to now- it has been a real "tool" for photographers.
Even Microsoft are abandoning XP, it's only a matter of time before all software producers are obliged to do the same. By the way, like many (millions) I held on to XP and dodged the Vista train-crash, but eventually went to Win7. It's a smart, mature O/S and I urge you to make the jump. (p.s. I'm not a MS troll, I also use Apple and Linux O/S's)
sparky52t: Being a Photoshop/Camera Raw user, I tried an earlier version of Lightroom some time ago. I came away wondering why I would need, another application to manipulate my photographs. What am I missing?
My only complaint about Adobe's Camera Raw process is the lack of a "history panel" to back-away from a series of changes I may have made. (like in Photoshop) Does Lightroom have something like that?
In spite of its name, Photoshop has its roots in graphic arts, whereas Lightroom was designed from the ground-up for photographers. If what you want from photo software is the same kind of enhancements photographers have employed in wet-process darkrooms for over a hundred years (e.g. control over exposure, contrast, color, crop etc.) then Lightroom is a great tool, and I wouldn't be without it. If you need to make rainy days look sunny, or fix Aunt Mabel's enormous ears, Photoshop's more appropriate. Ps and Lr are different. I only use Lr but know photographers who need both.
$139 sounds OK, but won't most people need to buy at least two of these things?
"With addition of the Book and Map modules, Lightroom's Module Picker is growing more crowded."
Surely the Book facility belongs somewhere within the existing Print module. Or did Blurb insist on having their own high-profile piece of UI real estate?
Good article thanks. Do you think there's a hierarchy when it comes to color management? For example, if you had to choose just one part of your workflow to calibrate, would it be WB, monitor or print?
Jman13: The color checker passport is, I feel, one of the most essential pieces of photography kit one can buy. It took my GH2 profiles from being a little bit green tinted to being dead on perfect, with rich, accurate color and is well worth the money.
Agreed, this is a very useful piece of gear, with the very great advantage of coming self-contained in in a close-able case to protect the color swatches and gray card from light (fading) and dirt etc. I have never seen the point of gray cards on a lanyard e.g. DigitalGrayKard, that are a dangling nuisance and must get dirty. Pity its LR plugin is a bit clunky.
Photog74: Do you know of any monitor/screen calibration device that can be used in a Linux environment? My understanding is that the software that comes with these gadgets works on Macs and Windows PCs only. I have read that the old Spyder 2 could apparently be used under Linux too, but I guess it is out of production.
BobDavid: Am I the only photographer on the planet that does not "get" blatant HDR? The best HDR photos are the ones where you can't tell HDR processing was part of the workflow.
No you're not the only one who fails to see the point of the bland, pastel renderings of HDR software. I can only hope this book helps photographers to achieve a "human's eye view" of high contrast scenes.
easyshare: I got 2 words for the ACLU.
Go on... don't be shy! What two words?