LightZone 3.1 Released...

[Scott Whittemore]

The path being used as a vector mask gets saved, yes.

...but only if you save your work as a PSD file, right?

I guess that's OK. Storage keeps getting cheaper.

--
Scott
http://smwhittemore.smugmug.com/

 

[John Bean (UK)]

The path being used as a vector mask gets saved, yes.

...but only if you save your work as a PSD file, right?

Of course... or a TIFF for that matter, anything that supports saving of layers. I thought that was assumed since we were discussing non-destructive editing.

I guess that's OK. Storage keeps getting cheaper.

I haven't at any point made any claims that PS does vector masking stuff better than LZ, just that it can do it... and of course it can. Storage efficiency is a whole different debate

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

 

[Scott Whittemore]

Of course... or a TIFF for that matter, anything that supports saving
of layers. I thought that was assumed since we were discussing
non-destructive editing.

We were. LightZone can save your work in a very small jpg file because all it's really saving is your 'tool stack' and the linkage to the original RAW (or whatever) file. Sorry, but in the context of LightZone, it's not assumed that we have to be saving in a layer-compatible file format.

--
Scott
http://smwhittemore.smugmug.com/

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Of course... or a TIFF for that matter, anything that supports saving
of layers. I thought that was assumed since we were discussing
non-destructive editing.

We were. LightZone can save your work in a very small jpg file
because all it's really saving is your 'tool stack' and the linkage
to the original RAW (or whatever) file. Sorry, but in the context of
LightZone, it's not assumed that we have to be saving in a
layer-compatible file format.

But in "the context of Photoshop" it most certainly is, and I was demonstrating that PS could do non-destructive editing using editable vector masks and layers,despite claims to the contrary. The file format was not part of the discussion, then or now, until you introduced it.

Lets just leave it there Scott, this is adding nothing to the discussion.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

 

[Raist3d]

Seems like they have the paths concept. With that you need to create
a selection and do the feathering. You have to convert just like in
PSP.

No, I answered this elsewhere.

If you can point with a link to where you said this I would appreciate it.

You can't use vector masks with feathering directly, so when you edit
those, you also have to convert to a selection (path first?) to get
any feathering control.

No

Can you please show me how to use vector masks with feathering then? I can't seem to find it.

Maybe I am missing something, since I used this a little and looked
at the help, but Photoshop just can't do what LightZone is doing.

Maybe it changed in some version, I don't really use vector masks in
anger.

I don't understand what you mean by "using vector masks in anger." Can you please elaborate on what you mean by this?

But in my CS2 I drew a path, made an adjustment layer using
the path as a vector mask and then modified the mask in various ways
including adding feathering. I used only vector tools and at no point
made use of selections.

Can you kindly point to me where to I add feathering to vector masks so that when I edit the vectors all the feathering holds relative to the paths/vector lines? I am trying to find this but I can't. I realize Photoshop is very complex and if it has this (apparently it does from what you say) it should be pretty easy, but it's one of those things that is probably then not so obvious to find for someone who doesn't use photoshop regularly but easy to use once you find them.

Can you please kindly point to me where can I do this? I know how to create a vector mask layer, but don't know how to link it to an adjustment layer (know how to create those too), and then modify the vector shape with feathering creating the mask for the adjustment layer in an re-editable way. Can you please point to where can I look at this? Menu items, icons to press would help. Thanks in advance.

Worked exactly as I imagined it would, I didn't even need to consult
the help.

I am glad you didn't need to do that. Would you please kindly point to me how to do this or even a link where I can find use of this feature? I can't seem to find a way to do this.

Anyway, maybe I am missing something, you tell me

Well, I've tried my best to do just that but seem to be failing

Well perhaps you could try better. I can't seem to find a way to do this in photoshop. If you can't point it out, then Ill just ask one of my co-workers that are full time artists that are fully knowledgeable in photoshop.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

--
Raist3d
Photography Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Vid Games Programmer
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) at the 1990 interview
'Photographers — idiots, of which there are so
many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a
Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the
dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing
but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and
interest. That’s what makes a good photograph. And
then rejecting anything that would be bad for the picture.
As I say, the wrong light, the wrong
background, time and so on. Just don’t do it,
not matter how beautiful the subject is.'

 

[Raist3d]

Correct me here, but I am not talking about doing a vector outline
per se. Can you do a vector mask with feathering inside, bound to an
adjustment layer?

Yes, that's exactly what I did before posting, just to check it
actually worked as I expected it to.

This is what I want to know. I looked in Photoshop
for this and was never able to find it. Maybe CS3? Haven't played
with CS3.

Dunno about CS3 but it works fine in CS2.

I created a vector shape with a combination of shape and pen tools
then created a new adjustment layer adding the shape as a vector
mask. Then I altered the layer so the affect on the image was
obvious, finally I modified the vector mask (in situ) using the pen
tools, adding and removing points and making it fit some curves. I
also adding feathering.

I prefer using bitmap masks in Photoshop because that's what I'm used
to, but the vector masks are fine with a bit of a mental gear shift
by me. If you want only vector masks I readily agree that
LightZone's tools are much more elegant and easy to use, I've never
claimed otherwise.

I'll state again (!): I disagreed only that LZ's underlying
structure of masked layers and non-destructive editing was unique as
Brian seemed to think, nothing more. In particular I made absolutely
no critical comments about the tools it gives the user to interact
with the underlying structure, they're actually very good at what
they do and quite easy to use, especially for someone fairly new to
image editing.

Keep in mind (again) that the reason that I mention this is because I can't find a way to do what you said which means:

(i) I am missing something, photoshop indeed can (latest versions) and it all works but I need to know how to do it

(ii) We are miscommunicating the feature we think we can do, and there's something you think photoshop can do but in reality, can't as readily as lightzone.

I am completely open to see the way Photoshop does this. I would appreciate if you tell me exactly what you are doing. I tried to create a vector mask and I did but nowhere I see feathering options in a way I can re-edit the vector mask for an adjustment layer.

But again, I am open to see how Photoshop can do it. Certainly earlier versions of it could not that were not so far away.

I never, ever recommend Photoshop to a new user because of the
learning curve, but that isn't the point here; all I asserted was
that PS can do things the way LZ does if that's what is needed, and
it can.

That's fine, I am trying to see how. I want to learn how Photoshop can do this.

Of course PS is a nightmare to a new user but any "old hand" can do
things in seconds that takes much longer in other editors because PS
has backdoors into almost everything - shortcuts abound, but are
useful only when you learn to use them. A beginners first choice as
an editor it's not.

Well, I am trying to see if it can indeed do it. If you can kindly point out where, instead of talking beginner vs expert, that would be much appreciated.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

--
Raist3d
Photography Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Vid Games Programmer
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) at the 1990 interview
'Photographers — idiots, of which there are so
many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a
Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the
dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing
but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and
interest. That’s what makes a good photograph. And
then rejecting anything that would be bad for the picture.
As I say, the wrong light, the wrong
background, time and so on. Just don’t do it,
not matter how beautiful the subject is.'

 

[Raist3d]

Correct me here, but I am not talking about doing a vector outline
per se. Can you do a vector mask with feathering inside, bound to an
adjustment layer?

Yes, that's exactly what I did before posting, just to check it
actually worked as I expected it to.

This is what I want to know. I looked in Photoshop
for this and was never able to find it. Maybe CS3? Haven't played
with CS3.

Dunno about CS3 but it works fine in CS2.

I created a vector shape with a combination of shape and pen tools
then created a new adjustment layer adding the shape as a vector
mask. Then I altered the layer so the affect on the image was
obvious, finally I modified the vector mask (in situ) using the pen
tools, adding and removing points and making it fit some curves. I
also adding feathering.

I was able to create a vector shape. Created and adjustment layer and dropped the vector mask into the mask area for the adjustment layer. I was able to modify the vector mask and the effect indeed showed up (I did a high contrast levels adjustment layer.)

So far ok.

A couple of issues:

1. 1. - can't find a way to use and set the vector to feathering. Did a lookup through help and feathering always talks about having first a selection. If you can kindly point to me how to do feathering on a vector mask and have that adjustable from the vector mask while I adjust the vector mask dynamically (i.e. moving the points of a vector line to new positions) I would appreciate it.

1. 2. I can't see to add new regions (i..e new vector shapes, etc.) to the vector mask. Seems it adds a whole new vector mask layer. How can I add several vector mask paths for the same adjustment layer?

I am trying to find out the answer for this but if you say it can be done, I would love to know how.

Thanks again.

--
Raist3d
Photography Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Vid Games Programmer
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) at the 1990 interview
'Photographers — idiots, of which there are so
many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a
Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the
dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing
but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and
interest. That’s what makes a good photograph. And
then rejecting anything that would be bad for the picture.
As I say, the wrong light, the wrong
background, time and so on. Just don’t do it,
not matter how beautiful the subject is.'

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Seems like they have the paths concept. With that you need to create
a selection and do the feathering. You have to convert just like in
PSP.

No, I answered this elsewhere.

If you can point with a link to where you said this I would
appreciate it.

I'm referring to my answer where I told you that I had made a vector mask and edited it. Surely you read it?

You can't use vector masks with feathering directly, so when you edit
those, you also have to convert to a selection (path first?) to get
any feathering control.

No

Can you please show me how to use vector masks with feathering then?
I can't seem to find it.

The feathering is applied using a normal mask but there's no conversion of the vector mask required. If the vector mask is altered you'd probably want to regenerate the feathering (or perhaps change it) but it just requires a couple of mouse clicks to do without further input.

I don't understand what you mean by "using vector masks in anger."
Can you please elaborate on what you mean by this?

Just a figure of speech. It just means I know how they work in theory but I don't really use them in my work. In other words I'm not an expert in this area.

Can you kindly point to me where to I add feathering to vector masks
so that when I edit the vectors all the feathering holds relative to
the paths/vector lines?

Feathering doesn't follow automatically but regeneration of the feathering doesn't require much effort and no vector data is lost.

Can you please kindly point to me where can I do this? I know how to
create a vector mask layer, but don't know how to link it to an
adjustment layer (know how to create those too), and then modify the
vector shape with feathering creating the mask for the adjustment
layer in an re-editable way.

1. Make your vector path using whatever tools.
2. Create a new adjustment layer. The vector mask will be made automatically.
3. Click the "add mask" icon on the layers palette to add a "normal" mask,

To edit the vector mask click on its icon and use the path tools to to change it.

To add a feather right-click inside the path while editing it and choose "fill path" and choose suitable parameters.

If you later edit the vector mask you'll need to re-fill it, but it remembers your last used settings so it's literally a couple of mouse clicks.

I never claimed it was elegant like LZ, just that it was possible - and not particularly hard to do.

Anyway, maybe I am missing something, you tell me

Well, I've tried my best to do just that but seem to be failing

Well perhaps you could try better.

I'm not sure how to take that. I'll assume that language differences accidentally made that sound... well, not the way it sounded :-(

I can't seem to find a way to do
this in photoshop. If you can't point it out, then Ill just ask one
of my co-workers that are full time artists that are fully
knowledgeable in photoshop.

Good idea. I hadn't wanted to turn this thread into a "obscure Photoshop features" tutorial in the first place.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

 

[John Bean (UK)]

I am trying to find out the answer for this but if you say it can be
done, I would love to know how.

You keep asking in several places all over this sub-thread. Again I've just answered this elsewhere.

Final reminder: at no point did I say that using vector masks this way in PS is as simple or elegant as in in LZ, I just said it can be done, and it can.

Whether you'd want to do it like this is another matter, personally I much prefer to use bitmap layer masks as I made clear right at the beginning.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

 

[Raist3d]

Raist3d wrote:
I never claimed it was elegant like LZ, just that it was possible -
and not particularly hard to do.

I am going to try this but if it is what I Think it is, it's not whether it's impossible or not with a work around, it's the amount of clicking and steps what makes LZ precisely come ahead in this area. If everytime any editing of a point involves this or a mask, this becomes very tiring fast, and quite burdernsome. I never claimed that you in the end couldn't do this in PSP or Photoshop via a work around, though it seems the work around is shorter than when I tried with converting to selections. I am going to check your instructions carefully- I want to learn the truth and if photoshop can do it easily hey, big knowledge up for me and much appreciated.

Ill try this soon, but wanted to clarify this point and the one below.

Anyway, maybe I am missing something, you tell me

Well, I've tried my best to do just that but seem to be failing

Well perhaps you could try better.

I'm not sure how to take that. I'll assume that language differences
accidentally made that sound... well, not the way it sounded :-(

Actually given the condescending context of "angry mask editing" this doesn't sound as funny when you wrote it, even with the smiley. But Ill just ignore the interchange and concentrate on the helpfull instructions in doing this. Just wanted to answer that quick.

Small update: you explained what you meant by that, but just goes to show how things can be taken in different languages over internet text. Didn't mean to take it that way.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

--
Raist3d
Photography Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Vid Games Programmer
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) at the 1990 interview
'Photographers — idiots, of which there are so
many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a
Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the
dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing
but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and
interest. That’s what makes a good photograph. And
then rejecting anything that would be bad for the picture.
As I say, the wrong light, the wrong
background, time and so on. Just don’t do it,
not matter how beautiful the subject is.'

 

[Raist3d]

I am trying to find out the answer for this but if you say it can be
done, I would love to know how.

You keep asking in several places all over this sub-thread. Again
I've just answered this elsewhere.

I am going to go with the last reply I did, in that place. "I keep asking in different places" because the thread spilt into different places, so I am stopping on this tree leaf and going to the other one in which I just replied. Please understand YOU DID THE SAME THING . It's just normal. I am consolidating this now.

Final reminder: at no point did I say that using vector masks this
way in PS is as simple or elegant as in in LZ, I just said it can
be done, and it can.

Whether you'd want to do it like this is another matter, personally
I much prefer to use bitmap layer masks as I made clear right at the
beginning.

Well the whole point is not whether you have a workaround. I did find a workaround as I mentioned before earlier from the very beginning in PSP and Photoshop, but it is painful and time consuming. Looks like this (and I will try it) is a bit faster, but still a work around going back and forth with dialogs which is not good for workflow. I will try your instructions though and I appreciate the effort in trying to explain this over internet text.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

--
Raist3d
Photography Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Vid Games Programmer
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) at the 1990 interview
'Photographers — idiots, of which there are so
many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a
Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the
dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing
but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and
interest. That’s what makes a good photograph. And
then rejecting anything that would be bad for the picture.
As I say, the wrong light, the wrong
background, time and so on. Just don’t do it,
not matter how beautiful the subject is.'

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Actually given the condescending context of "angry mask editing" this
doesn't sound as funny when you wrote it, even with the smiley. But
Ill just ignore the interchange and concentrate on the helpfull
instructions in doing this. Just wanted to answer that quick.

Believe me, there's no condescension whatsoever in the phrase "used in anger". It's just colloquial English that means "used in practical situations rather than in theory" - nothing more, nothing less. Despite the word "anger" appearing in the phrase there's no emotion of any sort in the meaning.

Small update: you explained what you meant by that, but just goes to
show how things can be taken in different languages over internet
text. Didn't mean to take it that way.

Exactly. That's why I was pretty certain that your "try harder" wording wasn't as impolite as it sounded when I first read it. English-speaking international forums are a bigger challenge than they first appear; so many people write my native language so well I sometimes forget it's not theirs and use colloquialisms that only make sense to native English speakers like me. My fault, I should know better after being around cyberspace for as long as I have.

Edit: I'd better clarify that my "English" is a different language from "American" (as I would call it) when it comes to colloquialisms, so when I wrote of "my native language" I was of course referring to what I would call "English" and you probably call "British"

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

 

[Raist3d]

I am going to try this some more when I get home. Looks like CS3 makes a distinction between paths and vectors or maybe I am getting something wrong.

So far it seems like:

• you can't have a realtime feedback on how the feathering/masking is affected together without having to do some dialog converts/fills by hand everytime you want to see how the change is (this is realtime in LZ)

• I still can't find in CS3 how to reproduce the instructions given, since the fill path is ghosted and I tried looking around how to make it unghost (this is either a problem/limiation of the trial version [not likely], or a problem in the workflow/how I need to build things [most likely]).

I'll try it more when I get home but so far looks like for simple editing of the paths/masking and so on, LZ gives you realtime feedback and is completely accessible edit by edit while CS3 has the issue of steps in between everytime you want to see a feather change affected.

I will explore this more tonight. Thanks again.

• Raist

 

[Scott Whittemore]

But in "the context of Photoshop" it most certainly is, and I was
demonstrating that PS could do non-destructive editing using editable
vector masks and layers,despite claims to the contrary. The file
format was not part of the discussion, then or now, until you
introduced it.

Lets just leave it there Scott, this is adding nothing to the
discussion.

This is a discussion. I think it's perfectly valid to intriduce a new relevant point. I believe the fact that the functionality in PS requires the user to create an additional large file does add something to the discussion.

You are certainly entitled to leave it wherever you wish, John.

--
Scott
http://smwhittemore.smugmug.com/

 

[Raist3d]

And why I would go as far as saying that yes, Photoshop can't really do this.

• finally was able to replicate what you mentioned. The method I use with converting to selections seems to give me FAR better control with the feathering but involves a couple more steps

• It was really truly hard to get the same feathering control with the method you mentioned. I could be missing something but I was never really able to blen a mask I did properly with a photograph, with an exagerated high contrast levels curve, doing the fill selection of the mask with high values, mid values and low values on the feathering.

• With this method you create a destructive mask. The mask has to be essentially recreated again and again in photoshop when you modify the vector mask, by doing that fill again. You had mentioned that you can keep the feathering values the same but it is virtually impossible to deal with because by modifying the vector points and mask you can't really see what's going on with the feathering and how it's affecting how it blends in the new areas of the image.

• And this is to edit a simple mask or a point here and there- you have to do all the step of fill layer again, probably have to enter new values to see if the feathering fits, and more importanlty you have to do this trial and error again and again as you can't see dynamically what's going on - unlike Light Zone.

• Moreover imagine you are doing several masks with the same adjustment layer. you would have to be very careful if you have overlapping vector masks because now you would have to recareate the mask per mask or

• you will have to use a different layer per vector mask even if the adjustment layer parameters are the same. which means if you change those now you will have to go layer by layer making them all equal. A complete nightmare (either way).

• And lightzone 3.1 added the ability to affect color regions per mask bound to the implicit layer they are in. This means for example you can have within a mask, a selection to select "colors near red" to be affected while at the same time you have the same control of feathering going on on the image space, per layer, with multiple masks. This as far as I could see clearly photoshop can't do , because photoshop allows you to select areas of an image based on color but not have an implicit data associated with such selection per layer like lightzone does.

I have to say it was truly hard to make approximate changes in photoshop that were not even satisfactory, the editing was completely incredibly cumbersome ebordering on impossible having to go through trial an error just to see how exactly the feathering would be affected.

Oh and maybe there's a way to do this in photoshop but I couldn't find a way to link say the same vector mask to several adjustment layers- LightZone also allows this. So if you edit the vector mask, in the same region several adjustment layers are all masked at the same time. LightZone provides for this with the copy/paste linked masks feature...

--
Raist3d
Photography Student & Tools/Systems/Gui Vid Games Programmer
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) at the 1990 interview
'Photographers — idiots, of which there are so
many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a
Leica, I could make great photographs.” That’s the
dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s nothing
but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and
interest. That’s what makes a good photograph. And
then rejecting anything that would be bad for the picture.
As I say, the wrong light, the wrong
background, time and so on. Just don’t do it,
not matter how beautiful the subject is.'

 

[photomarkus]

Discovered this on the PhotographyBLOG website... fantastic news for
all of the enlightened LightZone users out there!>
http://www.lightcrafts.com/download/download.html

I am always very concerned with future proof file formats and compatibility.

Imagine LightZone (LZ) won't exist in 5 years time any more. If you don't develop your images, but keep them only as a RAW with the set of "instructions" (=your modifications & corrections to the image you made), what if these "instructions" can't be read in future.

Similar in LightRoom (LR) and Aperture. If you never develop to a jpeg or tiff, the actual development is done on the fly within the given piece of software. What now, if one of these software tools becomes deprecated ? Is all your years of editing gone ?

Any explanations in this field are of interest to me. Thank you.

 

[John Bean (UK)]

Similar in LightRoom (LR) and Aperture. If you never develop to a
jpeg or tiff, the actual development is done on the fly within the
given piece of software. What now, if one of these software tools
becomes deprecated ? Is all your years of editing gone ?

It's all a matter of balancing risk and convenience. You're right in what you say of course, although I don't consider the risk to be high... but then I don't actually use any of these product. The convenience factor is obvious though.

On the other hand I use a more conventional approach with the penalty of having very large image files, but with good security from obsolescence. The layered TIFF or PSD files contain all the editing and - importantly - a composite top layer that represents the current state of the image at the time of saving. This can be read by anything that can read TIFF files whether or not it understands the editing layers.

I can see the value of each approach and also the weaknesses. I wouldn't switch to LZ today, but if I was starting from scratch I'd almost certainly go down that route rather than the traditional one I use.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

 

[Scott Whittemore]

Discovered this on the PhotographyBLOG website... fantastic news for
all of the enlightened LightZone users out there!>
http://www.lightcrafts.com/download/download.html

I am always very concerned with future proof file formats and
compatibility.

Imagine LightZone (LZ) won't exist in 5 years time any more. If you
don't develop your images, but keep them only as a RAW with the set
of "instructions" (=your modifications & corrections to the image you
made), what if these "instructions" can't be read in future.

Similar in LightRoom (LR) and Aperture. If you never develop to a
jpeg or tiff, the actual development is done on the fly within the
given piece of software. What now, if one of these software tools
becomes deprecated ? Is all your years of editing gone ?

Any explanations in this field are of interest to me. Thank you.

...there is very little such risk with LightZone. The actions you invoke are saved in a JPEG or TIFF file (your choice) that is linked to the original file. When you open that JPEG/TIFF file in LightZone, the application opens the original file, applies your tool stack and re-renders the image. If you open the TIFF or JPEG in Photoshop or any other application, it is recognized as a TIFF/JPEG and opened like any other TIFF/JPEG. If you are concerned about ensuring that the full value of your work in LightZone will never be lost or degraded regardless of the fate of LightZone or your own continued use of it, just set the default format in which you're saving your work to 16-bit TIFF. That will slow LightZone down a bit, especially if you're working on a machine with less than 2 GB RAM and/or if your working files are on an external drive. Obviously, that strategy also will eat up much more storage.

In any case, you're not saving your work in a proprietary file format that requires LightZone.

--
Scott
http://smwhittemore.smugmug.com/

 

[SirSeth]

I don't understand why this would be a problem. The camera you're using now won't be around in 5 years either. And if LightZone is bought out by Apple (smirk) the old versions of LightZone, which you purchased and work with your old camera, won't be suddenly useless to work with those older files will they?

I still use RawShooterEssentials. It was bought out by Adobe, which sucks, but it hasn't stopped doing a great job with my E-1 files (thanks to OlyColy). If I buy a new camera, I'll have to move to another editor, which is fine. I like to learn new stuff, but all my E-1 work in RSE won't suddenly vaporize. (Barring nuclear war).

Cheerio,
Seth

--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?

--
wallygoots.smugmug.com
wallygoots.blogspot.com

 

[John Bean (UK)]

I don't understand why this would be a problem. The camera you're
using now won't be around in 5 years either. And if LightZone is
bought out by Apple (smirk) the old versions of LightZone, which you
purchased and work with your old camera, won't be suddenly useless to
work with those older files will they?

But if LZ vanished without trace (not very likely, but...) the last version you have may not run on some future hardware/OS, just as many old Win95 programs won't run reliably - if at all - on Vista. That's the only concern I'd have, and it's a very real if small possibility.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 36:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/193058674/Large



Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039