Someone might want to double-check that "12 grams / 0.42 ounces" weight...
HTC's Wildfire was significantly more compact than many current smartphones, but you don't get much content onto that low res screen. A good idea, but a slightly frustrating reality - whereby some apps are not really usable. This, though, looks quite promising.
davidonformosa: I'm currently using Lightroom 3.6. Is it possible to upgrade directly to Lightroom 5? Do I get to upgrade for the reduced price?
@cfh25: "The UK pricing for the upgrade is £57.64, which includes 23% VAT (not sure how they get this figure)"
I believe electronic delivery is supplied to the UK from Eire, so subject to their local VAT rates. Something to do with minimising corporate taxation, apparently... IIRC physical shipments do accrue the UK VAT rate, though.
Henry M. Hertz: adobe sucks.. no better prove then this "update".
79 euro for such a few new features? they must think people earn their money by drinking beer.
if you want me to upgrade adobe... include more new features that make an upgrade worth it.
oh and adobe, have a look at photo ninja and how to do proper color rescue and highlight recovery.
even with the slider at 100% lightroom is not able to rescue highlights that are a NO PROBLEM with photo ninja.
"even with the slider at 100%" - do you mean Recovery? That belongs to the LR3 processing method. Things have moved on a lot since then.
SeeRoy: Is LR5 as deadly slow as LR4? If it is, I'll be sticking with LR4.
There is a lot about this on the Adobe LR user forum. Some people have been experiencing good performance, other people bad performance, from similar levels of hardware - and AFAIK nobody has yet found a clear pattern to this. Some particularly intensive tools such as Clarity and NR have been particularly problematic, or else, not. So it is not guaranteed that you will get a good, or a bad, experience.
It is worth noting that different versions of LR4 have previously shown quite different performance, generally improving. It has taken time to optimise and tweak the new process version, across all the myriad hardware variations out there. But since LR5 uses the same PV as LR4 does, it should benefit from all that development - there's not the same "clean break" that was found when moving from LR3 to LR4.
micahmedia: Great, can I get it without the BS file management crap?
"manage my files in folders and just make Lightroom mirror the folders" - this makes it sound as if people need to do TWO things once they start using LR, instead of ONE thing.
They don't. They can use LR to directly manage files in folders at the same time that they work on, use and manage these in other ways.
LR cannot easily replicate some pre-existing process of manually moving files through different folders to express a workflow. And if you persist in doing this anyway, LR is going to lose track and that makes extra work for you.
If LR is making extra work for you, you are using it wrongly.
At the simplest level: LR brings new pictures into the computer, in the right place, called the right thing, then they just stay there (regardless of your workflow steps) until you maybe decide to move them somewhere else for storage reasons, again assisted by LR. What's wrong with that, except maybe unfamiliarity?
There are lots of other programs that work other ways. But LR is specifically ABOUT the BS file management crap of which you speak. That's its point and purpose: to integrate everything else it does, within that particular framework.
You might as well expect a bear to always behave hygienically in the woods; or expect a relaxation of the "must be Catholic" rule, for Popes.
Dylan Borgman: Can anyone clarify if the LAB color readout is simply a color inspector or it allows us to manipulate curves in LAB space?
Using LAB curves instead of the usual RGB curves, is a common Photoshop technique to overcome some issues with RGB mode Curves. Few people use Lab for deliberately changing hues - altering a / b instead of R G B - they usually want Lab because they want to manipulate L in isolation. Alternatively, a Curves adjustment layer can be set to Luminance blending mode and achieve much the same effect on-the-fly without converting your whole image's colour mode.
Lightroom's tonal adjustments, just like those in ACR, have always worked in Luminance ANYWAY - one of the nicer aspects of working there rather than in PS. The separated RGB options of LR's Tone Curve are provided specifically for when you DO want to affect hue; as an exceptional matter, and in combination with many other hue controls such as WB and HSL. I don't see how Lab would add greatly to LR; its lack is no deficiency, anyway, IMO.
"...not just an interchangeable lens camera but a creative magic box..."
Bold claim. Can they substantiate that? (grin)
The only reason anyone could object to something like this, so far as I can see, is if the lens is then sold without revealing that it has been rebuilt. It is relatively easy to establish whether a lens is working properly or not, and if it is working properly, this is a commendable rescue IMO.
Being practical minded means doing whatever works, not just whatever people's preconceptions are comfortable with.
As for these internal parts of the lens being subject to corrosion in the future - they already were vulnerable to corrosion in the first place. Metal is metal. That is why it is such bad news to drop your lens into seawater (grin).
Suave: Perhaps I am missing something, but how is 19mm a "telephoto"?
"telephoto" is often used loosely to denote any lenses with long focal lengths, but when used strictly, is the technical term for one particular kind of optical design. This design is what allows a "600mm focal length" lens to be sized much less than 600mm long physically, for example - and this outcome is most useful for long lenses; but can apply for short focal lengths too.
KonstantinosK: In contrast to some comments below, I figured how to use Lightroom in no time without the slightest reading or any video tutorial. I can manage my photos easily and tweeking them to my liking is a joy. I found the processing of raw files excellent and far easier than any of the software supplied with the cameras that I've tried (Panasonic, Pentax, Sony and Nikon). In fact, I wouldn't shoot raw if it wasn't for Lightroom. And I really like the way third party plug-ins integrate into Lightroom. That's my opinion...
The difficulty is that many dissatisfied people expecting "the program to understand me" are using the wrong mental template of what is going on. There is no point in expecting LR to look or act like Bridge - if LR worked like Bridge, there'd be no reason for LR to exist as an alternative, everyone would just use Bridge.
A product like Lightroom (Aperture etc) represents a clean break from pure file- and folder-based working and is designed functionally for purpose. It would be misleading and confusing to offer a false similarity.
fed2man: The thing I am struggling with is how to keep track and back up images that I have changed in Photoshop. I do cntrl/cmd E to send the image to PS, and when I have finished, provided I save it in PS the changed image is shown in LR. BUT, and this is a big BUT, all that LR has in its list of instructions database is the fact that it went to PS for changes; the changes themselves are not recorded.Thus I need to keep track of these images so I can back up the actual images, because the LR catalog alone, plus the original image, would not be able to recreate the PS changed image. Anyone know how to deal with this issue? Or put me tight if I have something wrong? Other than this I love LR!
In fact, the Photoshop edited image appears in Lightroom as a fresh image version. The prior version with all of its editing History up to that moment, is still also there.
The editing done in PS is - by definition - not of the kind that LR could have done or kept track of. It has to happen in an external, separate file on disk. The way that this is preserved, is by backing up the PS editing file (the PSD or the TIFF file complete with all its pixel and adjustment layers, masks and such) along with all the other image files that your LR Catalog is using. Such PS editing files are by default created inside the same folder as the camera file on which they have been - with adjustments - based. So they will be included automatically if you backup that folder.
Then you also backup your Catalog (database) file, regularly, and all of your work is safeguarded.
There was a story recently where someone hung a small robust digital camera set on interval timer, round the neck of his cat - just to see what it got up to all day.
Beyond the short-lived novelty of how accidental they looked, those pictures were just as banal as this thing will likely produce - but the circumstances were at least a little more surprising.
That was IMO an interesting use for the technology. This whole notion here, though, sems to just pander to self-absorbed egotism. It is not up to any of us, to decide how fascinating - or otherwise - we are. Bah humbug.
Sam Carriere: First, let us clarify that "awesomer" is not a word.More importantly, leave it alone.
I don't require a photo sharing website to be "awesome", "awesomer" or even "awesomest".
In truth NO amount of overwhelming feelings of confusion and inadequacy, is going to be much assistance when seeking somewhere to put your pictures on the internet.
I personally am far more interested in experiencing the searing and unignorable emotions of: "works OK", and "remains available much of the time".
Neil2112: Using Aperture here for small shoots, cataloging and I/O.For serious work (1500 shot weddings) Lr4 is a must have. No debate.
It comes as a significant disappointment that in a field where Apple should outright dominate, they're a big fat nowhere. Why go to all the pain of producing a fabulous new laptop and then cede the market to Adobe with such a weak app?
Honestly, I really want to use Aperture, but it is nowhere close to the raw energy and power of Lightroom. Apple, if you ever want to step up your game and kick Adobe's keister, now would be a nice time to do it.I'm waiting.
"lens correction and NR, and both are available in Ap3 via plugins" - creating a separately saved TIFF file, correct? That is not remotely the same thing, practically speaking. You can do the same things in LR using plugins; it is a considerable advantage if you do not have to.
There are always tasks (unique to an individual image) which necessarily call for an image editor instead of a program such as Aperture / LR / whatever. But for those more routine tasks that may need to happen the same across many images, the parametric approach is IMO greatly preferable. In due course, I would expect Aperture to integrate these things too, and for Apple and Adobe to continue to leapfrog each other technically. However, millions of Windows users out in the wider world, have no plans to switch to MacOS anyway; Aperture is irrelevant there.
JasperD: So, PSE10 users are left in the cold??? I mean, that one isn´t that old yet, and there´s no upgrade spotted on the horizon that I can see. Not that I´d like to upgrade only to get ACR7.1 for X-Pro1 support, but that aside. :(Oh well, might decide as well that I´ve had it with Adobe, here´s hoping for Aperture not to wait too long (and also doing a bit better, please).
"DNG is RAW converted to TIFF type file"
It's a TIFF "language" container, with a preview and metadata etc in a standard published format. But what is inside this container, is not a converted bitmap and this is not the same thing as a standard 'TIF file. The contents are (almost always AFAIK) untouched sensor data identical to the contents of a camera proprietary Raw. The DNG container provides enough information that this can be deciphered and interpreted, where that camera model is not supported, just as well as where it is - apart from a few peripheral differences, most notably the availability of camera colour profiles.
What happens next, is standard Raw processing (demosaicing, contrast curves and so on).
Northgrove: Since it can't see colors even at the sensor level, I assume R/G/B filters to enhance e.g. cloud contrast or improve skin tones in B&W photography is thrown out the window along with color? That would suck if true.
Edit: BTW, I mean in-camera filtering. I guess you could carry actual, physical red filters etc, but I have to wonder if that's so much fun. At the pixel peeping level Leica is playing this game, that's another optical layer in front of the lens to worry about as well.
If it's panchromatic mono, why do the camera details listed above say there are 6 whitebalance presets plus a custom WB? (grin)
I also note the colourbalance panel (presumably, futile with this camera) that is showing in the screenshot from SilverEfex that Leica are showing on their site.
Seemingly, it'll take time to get fully adjusted to the idea of this.
bdorichards: Will this now work with the latest DNGs from Lightroom 4?
I believe so. Certainly all the various interactions are now supported properly between LR4 and CS5, in that the adjustments made in Lightroom are displayed properly in Photoshop.
Without this update, the "Edit in PS" Lightroom command did at least offer an option to have LR render the adjustments into a bitmap, instead of having PS do it - which sidestepped the incompatibility of "process versions". However this did not work for the other methods available, including the useful option to open multiple LR images as layers of a PS document. Now with ACR6.7 those methods do work, at least in that the transferred image does not change appearance.
Importantly, though, this update (if the release candidate is any guide) probably does not add any ability for the ACR dialog to manipulate the new 2012 processing version. So it seems it would be entirely up to Lightroom to do that, unless / until one upgraded to CS6 and ACR7.
"The Speedliter's Handbook is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and kindle e-book version."
Useful to know, probably, at least for speedliters - whatever they are.
But - what about "the Photographer's Mind"? Where can we get that? (grin)
Ashley Pomeroy: "Close-ups of body parts often work better than traditional full-body portraits"
Is it me, or does the image on the left look like a dog's... well, it looks a bit cleft-y, doesn't it?
In some dogs, there's a distinctive way that the hair grows in an opposite direction, along the spine - for example, there are established "Ridgeback" breeds. that is what this shot looks like. A shot showing an unusual characteristic of a particular dog will definitely mean something to the owner, even if it's a bit cryptic to others.
One thing the article did not touch on, was how to address the dog owner's wishes and requirements from the session...but maybe, you can do no more than promise to bear them in mind.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review