Barry Pearson

Barry Pearson

Lives in United Kingdom Stockport, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired computer systems engineer
Joined on Sep 24, 2005
About me:

Photographic qualifications: LRPS, CPAGB

My websites require no registration, are non-commercial, and free of paid-for advertising.

I have no commercial or contractual relationship with digital photography companies, other than paying for the use of their products.

Comments

Total: 164, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

snegron2: I haven't been following any Adobe news lately. Are they still forcing you to buy into their subscription service, or did they give up on that silly marketing ploy? I gave up on Adobe for this reason. How will you open any RAW files in ACR using stand alone version of CS6 from any camera produced from next month onward?

Use the new DNG Converter to generate DNGs from the new raws.

Then open those DNGs in older Photoshops.

(This technique goes back a long way).

(ps: some of us like the subscription service. I subscribe to the full CC which gives me nearly all of their professional-grade apps).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 27, 2015 at 18:58 UTC
In reply to:

41mm: hello adobe !!

lens profile support for sigma quattro cameras but NO X3F RAW support.
Whats going on. Are you a garage software band gang company ??

;–)

I believe it used to be the case that Adobe needed code from Sigma to decode raw files from Foveon sensors. Is that true?

(One of the reasons that X3F files can't be properly converted to raw-DNG, rather than linear-DNG, it that this would need publication of Sigma's specifications).

Is there a communications problem between Sigma and Adobe?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2015 at 14:15 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: For those awaiting LR6. I wouldn't have too much hope right now anymore for an imminent LR6 release. The reason for that is that ACR and the development engine from LR are actually one and the same thing.

There has never been any difference in editing functionality between Adobe Camera RAW and LR's editing module so far . Only the looks are much different. The engine that runs the editing module has been the same since the first release of LR.

Just a Photographer:

1. I've used channels! I've also used Lab & CMYK & Indexed Color and other special features in Photoshop. But NONE of the photos that I had accepted in International Salons last year needed those.

2. See the link below for workshop notes I published in 2010. They show how I was using Lightroom and Photoshop 5 years ago, and that I did NOT stop using Photoshop after opening my raw files!

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/top2009/downloads/Barry-Pearson-Step-by-step-processing.pdf

3. No-one here claims that LR could replace Photoshop or that it has as much editing possibilities!

4. LR is suitable for professional use. It has professional-grade workflow-tools & image-asset management & raw conversion. It also has competent (but not comprehensive) editing capability that can also apply to JPEGs, PNGs, TIFFs, and PSDs. (Using metadata not raster editing).

5. Lightroom is also suitable for "consumer" use, aided by its "slow reveal" of capability.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2015 at 14:03 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: For those awaiting LR6. I wouldn't have too much hope right now anymore for an imminent LR6 release. The reason for that is that ACR and the development engine from LR are actually one and the same thing.

There has never been any difference in editing functionality between Adobe Camera RAW and LR's editing module so far . Only the looks are much different. The engine that runs the editing module has been the same since the first release of LR.

Just a Photographer: you said: "What complex editing is possible with LR to your opinion?"

It depends on one's definition of "complex editing". It would be perverse to claim that the definition of that is "the sort of things that Photoshop can do that Lightroom can't". In fact, there won't be a consensus on what it means!

I've given workshops in Photoshop, yet never even used some of the things you listed earlier. Many of them are esoteric, not mainstream. Many people whose images are accepted in International Salons don't use them! (Like me).

There is a link below to some notes for a workshop I gave in 2010. The Appendix illustrates a few techniques for image manipulation in Lightroom 3. (Three). This is NOT "simplistic"!

Lightroom 5 obviously goes further. Lightroom 6 will go further still, and may provide editing for composites (HDR and panoramas). Here is the link:

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/top2009/downloads/Barry-Pearson-Step-by-step-processing.pdf

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 21:08 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: For those awaiting LR6. I wouldn't have too much hope right now anymore for an imminent LR6 release. The reason for that is that ACR and the development engine from LR are actually one and the same thing.

There has never been any difference in editing functionality between Adobe Camera RAW and LR's editing module so far . Only the looks are much different. The engine that runs the editing module has been the same since the first release of LR.

Just a Photographer: you said: "You clearly never used ACR". If that was directed at me, it couldn't be more wrong!

I used ACR as my primary raw converter from early 2004 until I obtained Lightroom 1.0. Then, of course, because of the way Lightroom interacts with ACR and Photoshop, I've used ACR as as a secondary raw converter since them. About 11 years using ACR!

I am responding to statements such as "LR is just a RAW converter to enhance your images, but its not really suited for image manipulation." That statement is simply not true.

NO ONE here is claiming that Lightroom has the FULL editing capability of Photoshop! Nor have most editing programs.

But any claim that Lightroom is "not really suited for image manipulation" would also condemn other image editors that many people think ARE suited for image manipulation.

Any claim that "LR is just a RAW converter" (note "just") would condemn some raw converters to be "less than raw converters", because they don't match Lightroom!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: For those awaiting LR6. I wouldn't have too much hope right now anymore for an imminent LR6 release. The reason for that is that ACR and the development engine from LR are actually one and the same thing.

There has never been any difference in editing functionality between Adobe Camera RAW and LR's editing module so far . Only the looks are much different. The engine that runs the editing module has been the same since the first release of LR.

Just a Photographer: you said: "Sure since CC we have had 'Regular CC, CC2013, CC2014. A CC2015 release is therefore to be expected."

I wasn't aware of a "CC2013". I thought it went directly from CC to CC2014. I first subscribed to CC mid-2014, and it was just called CC. Is what you call "CC2013" the same thing as the official "CC" or a 2nd version of "CC"?

The statement "LR is just a RAW converter to enhance your images, but its not really suited for image manipulation" is an exaggeration! I'm not sure what "just a RAW converter" is supposed to mean - even just the Develop module is vastly more powerful than tools that we USED to call "raw converters"! After all, many of the editing tools work on JPEGs as well as raw files.

Of course it is possible to list things that are in Photoshop but not Lightroom. That only matters for people who need them. And "Layers" is one possible means to an end, not an end in itself. The Adjustment Brush can achieve some equivalent effects.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 17:50 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: For those awaiting LR6. I wouldn't have too much hope right now anymore for an imminent LR6 release. The reason for that is that ACR and the development engine from LR are actually one and the same thing.

There has never been any difference in editing functionality between Adobe Camera RAW and LR's editing module so far . Only the looks are much different. The engine that runs the editing module has been the same since the first release of LR.

Just a Photographer: sorry to split my response over a number of comments!

You mentioned PS CC2015, as though there will be another major release of Photoshop. I've wondered about that. Will there?

Since I subscribed to Creative Cloud, I've had a number of upgrades to Photoshop. (I'm not even sure what they all were! I just press the "Update" button, and sometimes I don't study what the differences are afterwards).

This reduces the need for "big-bang" releases. Instead of bundling up lots of changes into one big release which we have to wait for, we tend to get the individual changes as they become available with sufficient quality. (I'm mostly a fan of incremental development like this).

I can imagine that if there were a major change of user interface it might wait for such a release. Alternatively, it could be released as a non-default option.

(If Photoshop drops support for an operating system or chip-set, it would probably need a major release).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 12:32 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: For those awaiting LR6. I wouldn't have too much hope right now anymore for an imminent LR6 release. The reason for that is that ACR and the development engine from LR are actually one and the same thing.

There has never been any difference in editing functionality between Adobe Camera RAW and LR's editing module so far . Only the looks are much different. The engine that runs the editing module has been the same since the first release of LR.

Just a Photographer: Another point - you said: "Though I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe will get rid of ACR/Bridge eventually to have it replaced for LR".

Remember that Bridge is an asset management tool across the whole Creative Suite, hence (optionally) most of the Creative Cloud. Much of its use, for example most of the applications that work with it, aren't to do with photography.

I can sort-of imagine a catalogue-based alternative to Bridge, (although probably not a replacement for it), but I can't see that being Lightroom with its current scope.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 12:18 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: For those awaiting LR6. I wouldn't have too much hope right now anymore for an imminent LR6 release. The reason for that is that ACR and the development engine from LR are actually one and the same thing.

There has never been any difference in editing functionality between Adobe Camera RAW and LR's editing module so far . Only the looks are much different. The engine that runs the editing module has been the same since the first release of LR.

Just a Photographer: you said "PS is 'the real' thing when it comes down to image editing and manipulation... LR is an all in one soluiton for those ...."

I think that statement is misleading for at least 2 reasons:

1. Lightroom is a true photography tool. Photoshop is used for lots of graphical manipulation other than photographic images. (I use it for website graphics, for example, and some expert users of Photoshop don't actually use it for photography).

2. Lightroom and Photoshop fit well together for photography purposes. I treat Photoshop, in effect, as a plug-in to Lightroom. To handle an image, I start with Lightroom. The catalogue and its searches and filters provide powerful flexible administration for which Bridge isn't a full substitute.

In effect, for me, Lightroom helps manage my workflow and much of my editing, while Photoshop provides extra editing capability where Lightroom hasn't (yet) caught up.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2015 at 11:59 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: For those awaiting LR6. I wouldn't have too much hope right now anymore for an imminent LR6 release. The reason for that is that ACR and the development engine from LR are actually one and the same thing.

There has never been any difference in editing functionality between Adobe Camera RAW and LR's editing module so far . Only the looks are much different. The engine that runs the editing module has been the same since the first release of LR.

LensBeginner: OK. That sounds plausible.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: For those awaiting LR6. I wouldn't have too much hope right now anymore for an imminent LR6 release. The reason for that is that ACR and the development engine from LR are actually one and the same thing.

There has never been any difference in editing functionality between Adobe Camera RAW and LR's editing module so far . Only the looks are much different. The engine that runs the editing module has been the same since the first release of LR.

LensBeginner: You said: "LR goes hand in hand with PS".

Here are the dates for major releases of Photoshop and Lightroom, as far as I know. I don't think they show a consistent pattern of "hand in hand" releases.

May 2005: CS2
February 2007: Lr 1.0
April 2007: CS3
July 2008: Lr 2.0
October 2008: CS4
April 2010: CS5
June 2010: Lr 3.0
March 2012: Lr 4.0
May 2012: CS6
June 2013: CC
June 2013: Lr 5.0
June 2014: CC 2014

(ps: I got these dates from Wikipedia).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 12:38 UTC
In reply to:

Snikt228: Hopefully Lightroom 6 is soon to follow?

There is a lot of speculation about the date for Lightroom 6, linked to this announcement about ACR 8.8.

The table at the link below gives dates for releases of ACR and Lightroom up to the end of 2010. Perhaps someone here can show the algorithm for predicting a new release of Lightroom based on releases of ACR, but I can't! I might expect to see a Lightroom 5.8 first, but ACR 4.5 and Lightroom 2.0 even came out on the same day.

I don't there ever was a Lightroom 1.5, yet there was even an ACR 4.6 after Lightroom 2.0. Then Photoshop and ACR caught up with Lightroom's version numbers later.

It used to be easy: Photoshop CSx used ACR x+1. (So CS4 used ACR 5.y). But with CC the Photoshop numbering scheme has changed.

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/history.htm

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 10:25 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: For those awaiting LR6. I wouldn't have too much hope right now anymore for an imminent LR6 release. The reason for that is that ACR and the development engine from LR are actually one and the same thing.

There has never been any difference in editing functionality between Adobe Camera RAW and LR's editing module so far . Only the looks are much different. The engine that runs the editing module has been the same since the first release of LR.

Although I am not as pessimistic as you about the date of Lightroom 6, I do take seriously your point about the importance of the relationship between the engines in Lightroom and ACR.

It might be worth mentioning one reason this matters, for the sake of anyone who thinks that it isn't functionally important that these are kept in step. (I suspect you already know this).

When Lightroom is told to open an image in Photoshop for editing, where possible it doesn't pass a processed binary version of the file to Photoshop. It passes the identification of the file and its editing metadata to ACR, which automatically generates the binary image and passes that to Photoshop. So ACR is an important link between Lightroom and Photoshop, as long as it can support the editing metadata.

If the image is opened in Photoshop as a smart object, when that smart object is edited later, ACR rather than Lightroom is used for the editing. So ACR is a sort of proxy for Lightroom's Develop module.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 09:04 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: "Adobe has released its Camera Raw 8.8 final release for Photoshop CC/CS6, the company has announced. "

Motivation to take a serious look at CaptureOne and DXO10 for future cameras, or perhaps some future AfterShotPro3.

Josh Bailey: You said: "PS. I like to push the image as far as I can while it is in RAW format before going to Photoshop so I am utilising the most information possible out of that image. Kind of OCD about this stuff."

I do something similar, and I don't consider it to be OCD!

The way I think about it is that I am trying to get the histogram right in the raw converter (Lightroom Develop module, or whatever) while there are plenty of bits per pixel to work with. I'm less concerned with other aspects of editing, and often sort those out in Photoshop. With a good histogram in the raw converter, I can typically use 8-bit Adobe RGB files in Photoshop. I rarely need (say) 16-bit ProPhoto RGB.

(And I only do stage-1 sharpening in Lightroom, because I don't know all possible destinations for the image).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 08:17 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: For those awaiting LR6. I wouldn't have too much hope right now anymore for an imminent LR6 release. The reason for that is that ACR and the development engine from LR are actually one and the same thing.

There has never been any difference in editing functionality between Adobe Camera RAW and LR's editing module so far . Only the looks are much different. The engine that runs the editing module has been the same since the first release of LR.

You make a good point. But the HDR and panorama features would apparently break new ground, and may surprise us.

Up to now, there has been a "clean mapping" between the objects in the library (catalogue) and the editing module. The catalogue refers to single image files at a time, and those are what are edited. HDR and panorama editing appear to need links between images files in the catalogue, forming some sort of "composite object". Will the normal Develop module be able to act upon such a composite object, or will there have to be an extra module or sub-module to do so? (I've been trying to guess for some time how all this will be done).

One major difference between Lightroom and Photoshop has been this limitation in Lightroom about no composite editing. Once that limitation is removed for a couple of cases, what next? As you say, we'll have to wait and see!

Here are some rumours about Lightroom 6:

http://photorumors.com/2015/02/18/adobe-lightroom-6-leaked-online/

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 08:01 UTC
In reply to:

Bruce Photography: I know this is nothing new but I just took delivery on a new Nikon D7200. Can Anybody speculate when Adobe will have a camera raw that can read it?

Camera makers could speed things up by supplying Adobe and other 3rd party software providers with cameras, and /or detailed specifications of the raw file formats, in advance.

I've read that some camera makers do so, and so can be supported by such software from first delivery. But I haven't read of Nikon (or Canon) doing so.

(My main cameras are Pentax. I shoot DNG, so my software products support raw files from my new main cameras without needing change).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 07:38 UTC
In reply to:

Just a Photographer: For those awaiting LR6. I wouldn't have too much hope right now anymore for an imminent LR6 release. The reason for that is that ACR and the development engine from LR are actually one and the same thing.

There has never been any difference in editing functionality between Adobe Camera RAW and LR's editing module so far . Only the looks are much different. The engine that runs the editing module has been the same since the first release of LR.

Yes, the Lightroom Develop module has the same core as ACR. (For any particular process version).

But Lightroom is much more than the Develop module. New features in version 6 are rumoured to include face recognition, merge to HDR, panorama stitching of some kind, etc.

There have been 3 process engines (in the Develop module) since the first release of Lightroom. The original one (called 2003 process version), another from 2010, and the current one from 2012.

These correspond to the same 3 engines during the life of ACR. Some of the Develop module and ACR editing controls changed as these new process versions were introduced.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 07:26 UTC
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: t6i/t6s, but no EOS-M3?

edu T: the following page shows some of the changes than can occur from one sensor to another, one camera model to another, etc. (Hence things that have to be catered for by DNG metadata).

http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/innovation.htm#examples

(I haven't added examples to this table since 2010, so there is even more variety now).

This table also serves to illustrate some of the things that raw converters have to take into account to get high quality images!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 22, 2015 at 07:07 UTC
In reply to:

Tonkotsu Ramen: t6i/t6s, but no EOS-M3?

edu T: Yes, I know. I've done similar things with a hex-editor.

I've tested some software that even made its own guesses if it didn't know the camera. (It was many years ago and I can't remember what it was. Bibble? But I think it catered for variants of the D70 that way).

Adobe (and I think most other software) doesn't make such guesses. It would be a bit hit or miss! It isn't just a matter of the raw encoding format. Differences in the CFA colours would also cause problems. And in some cases, the DNG Converter is able to detect differences between cameras of the SAME model, and use CameraCalibration1 to cater for their differences.

(I once found a variant of this. Phase One Capture One 4.0 Beta 1 supported DNG. But it checked whether the manufacturer was "Hasselblad", "Leaf", or "Mamiya", and if so deliberately refused to process the DNG! When I edited the name to an alternative string of the same length, it processed the DNGs! I wonder if Capture One continued to do this?)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 21, 2015 at 22:51 UTC
In reply to:

Aleksandr Reznik: Why are they pushing this fng DNG converter? I need Camera Raw - how can i download one?

Edgar_in_Indy: you said "So why not do like Pentax, and offer both?"

I've wondered that. Some people (validly) argue that the native raw files contain data that isn't valid in the DNG specification, and this data can be exploited by software that knows about it, including the camera-maker's own software.

That doesn't apply to people who are using Adobe's raw converters. Those use data equivalent to what is in DNG. (There is probably other 3rd party software that it doesn't apply to).

The case on behalf of users for allowing a choice is strong. It would mean that suitable software would be able to process raw files from the start, without having to wait for updates. It is good to be able to pre-order a camera and use it immediately. (I use Pentax and Lightroom).

This would appears to be a user-option without a downside for users if not camera-makers.

(ps: not all Pentax cameras that support DNG support PEF too. I wonder why Ricoh/Pentax don't drop PEF entirely?)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 21, 2015 at 15:12 UTC
Total: 164, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »