2018 New Years Photography resolution

The colors are what i thought were interesting. I noticed the cranes the other night when the sun was going down but couldn't get back down there until tonight. One o the things that I didn't forsee was a lot of interference and glare from the parking lot lights. Additionally I would like to have removed the iron beam that is sticking up from the building but I had no way to do it on my computer. I guess I am going to have to breakdown and subscribe to lightroom or some other photo editing software for situations like that.

What do most people use and which software is easier to use for people that grew up in BC time (before computers)?

I use Lightroom and I am quite fond of it. I probably don’t use 10% of its capabilities, but it does everything my brain can wrap itself around. I’m sure others will chime in as well.

I use Lightroom Classic CC which is part of the Photography cloud subscription. That includes Photoshop for heavy editing, and a more cloud oriented version of Lightroom that is just called Lightroom CC. Lightroom Classic is a standalone version where you store everything local. The other you store everything in the cloud and have access from the web, local, and phones. It is still $10 a month or $120 a year.

I also have, and sometime use, two others. They are perpetual license, ie no subscription. They do seem to upgrade every year for about $50-60. They are ON1 Photo Raw and Sklum's Luminar. At first I thought I was going to really like Luminar, but found some weaknesses. Photo Raw is pretty good and has a new version coming out in a couple of weeks that has some performance tweaks and usability enhancements.

All three work with all kinds of file types, but at the core are RAW editors so if you shoot RAW format then you'll get a lot out of them. They still do fine with jpegs though.

Lightoom's extra feature, besides editing, is that it is a file management program also. When you pull the images from the camera, you import them into LR. The still live on your hard drive, untouched, but the "edits" live in the LR catalog. So from a space standpoint you don't create a lot of extra edited files lying around. You can export those edits to a jpeg for posting, or even straight to a hosting site.

ON1 Photo Raw doesn't quite have a catalog concept, but it writes a file of all the edits you do to an image into a sidecar file. The sidecar is the same name as the image file, but with a different extension and it lives in the same folder on your hard drive with the image. This also doesn't take up a lot of space, but does add a bunch of folders. Of the three it is in the middle as far as ease of use, but very similar in use to LR.

Luminar however has none of that at this point for managing changes or files. You open a file, you edit a file, you save in their format with history (very large files) or export as a new jpeg. So while the tool is great and easy to use, file management sucks. They are supposed to release a new version this year with file management, but it has steadily slipped in release date all year. It is by far the easiest to use.

Both the of the other programs work as plugins to Lightroom and sometimes I'll use Luminar for a certain effect/feature straight from LR. It still creates a new file, but at least I can manage it from one place.

When I mean manage, in both LR and ON1, I have a list of all my images on the left that I can see inside the program. Luminar you have to know where they are and you use File/Open or File/Save or File/Export menus all the time. Not good when you are dealing with 1000s of images from a shoot.

Hope that helps. I ought to make that a sticky post...

Subscribing

Thanks for the feedback. Wow . Lots to take in and absorb with the photo editing software. I went to the On 1 site and it looks like the new version is pretty impressive. I need to check out the Lightroom suite and see how it compares. It seems to be pretty much the standard everyone uses so there is most likely a lot of info out there on how to use it since it has been around longer.
With all the things you can do with editing software it almost makes the fundamentals and mechanics of taking the pictures obsolete. You can just take the pic any way you want and then fix it in the editing software later.

twtex85 said:

With all the things you can do with editing software it almost makes the fundamentals and mechanics of taking the pictures obsolete. You can just take the pic any way you want and then fix it in the editing software later.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. You need to do your part in capturing the image properly (or in the manner/style you want to present the final product). The camera can only do so much after that. There's a couple factors in this process.

Data - RAW files capture a ton more data than .jpg files. Think of the details in the image, and light as data. Would you rather work with little data or big data? Big data every time!

Dynamic Range - This is easily described as the spectrum between bright and dark. Your eye sees something like 20 stops of dynamic range. This is what allows you to see that broad difference between something bright as well as pick out the details in a shadow at the same time. But even with that great dynamic range, there's a adjustment period of several seconds to achieve that view with the human eye. The cameras of today only have about 11 stops of dynamic range and they're trying to capture that in a fraction of a second. So there's some limitations in the algorithm's used to actually create the image you see. That's where software comes into play.

The editing software in the dynamic range category allows you (if shooting RAW) to pull out those dark details to be viewable. On the flip side, highlights are actually a loss of data, ie: if it's super white, there's no coming back from that as there's literally no data there to work with.

Between photo stacking, merging or HDR functions, the more data you have to work with the better your final image could possibly be as it relates to what your eye saw. Conversely, the more 'artsy' you can get away from reality with all that data as well. That's totally the photographers choice as to what they want to present.

You can think of all this as simply data manipulation in the dynamic range spectrum. Don't like that beam on the roof? Clone it out. Again, data manipulation via a clone tool of some variety. ie: take the data next to the area and simply clone that data to where the beam used to be. (BTW - that beam would be a bit difficult due to the fading light from left to right as well as top to bottom)

Same goes for editing portraits and faces.... You're manipulating the data to remove pimples, wrinkles, stray hair and such. You can also elongate the necks, change the profile of cheekbones, smooth skin and a host of other features. In the digital world, this is all possible.

But it all rests with using as much data as you have available and your desire to create what YOU want to present. Some folks like "true to the eye", other like wild/artsy creations. That's the beauty in all this - it's your choice.

Glad to hear that you the mechanics and composition of the pic still play a vital role in taking a great photograph as these are the items that have to be learned thru experience and trial and error.
The digital age has made it a lot easier to see what you need to do as you can see the results right away. It also seems that you have a greater leeway if you don't get the shot just right. I guess it was no different with film only more limiting if you didn't get the shot right in the first place. You did have some latitude during the development process afterward to compensate for poor technique but you thought more about the mechanics of taking the shot since you were going to have to pay to have that film developed and mistakes cost you money. With Digital that is no longer the case. Don't like the shot just delete it and retake it. (spoken like a grumpy old man who has a hard time keeping up in the digital age)

Well, if you shoot RAW format, you get all the info from the sensor and have lots of leeway to adjust. If you shoot jpeg, the camera applies your settings and does the standard jpeg compression. So you get the settings permanently applied to the saved file. But you still need to get basic composition correct in camera. And things like using a polarizer filter need to be on camera to eliminate glare. But you can fix sky, remove many objects, fix over/under exposed areas. Things like that. With limits. Just that the limits are larger with a RAW file.

I think both ON1 and Luminar have trial versions. I know for sure that Lightroom does. And look on Youtube for lessons. Lots of people have free training videos. Anthony Morganti has lessons on all three, but primarily on Lightroom.

Oh, and I'm usually happy to sit down with someone and show them the basics of editing.

Thanks Rusty. I am shooting in RAW format. i am able to do some editing on my I Mac. I am thinking that if I decide to go with a formal photo editing software package I will probably have to update to a new I Mac since the one I have is a 2011 model and Ive noticed that it takes a while when I edit my pics taken in RAW format.

The newer ones have a much faster processor and video card with much more memory. I have already maxed out the RAM on mine but I think the video cards limited memory is what is causing it to run slow when I edit pictures. I am thinking I will buy a new one to use it just for photos. I'll check out the lightroom website today.

Apple just announce a new Macbook Air and the return of the Mac Mini. No news on new processors for the iMac though. I was hoping for a tweak there. My iMac is a bit newer than yours, but not a lot and I'm ready for some more computer power too. My laptop is a Macbook Air. I can't afford to replace both and a pure laptop solution doesn't have the same speed as either a Mac mini or current iMac. Oh well. Eventually I'll have to get something. Probably depends on which fails first

Pic from Arkansas last weekend.

Remember Veterans Day this weekend

Winter day

nice b&w - like the subject, comp

Thanks for the feedback Tracker. Wasn't sure how this one was going to turn out but it came out better than I thought. I started this thread at the beginning of the year to force me to get more familiar with my camera and settings so I didn't have to relearn everything whenever I picked it up.. I think by the end of the year I will have accomplished a lot toward that goal and additionally I have figured a few things out with regards to light, composition, and the mechanics of taking pics.
Still got a long way to go from looking at the great pics from some of the people who post here regularly. So many different areas in photography to learn about that I have just scratched the surface.

M38A1 said:

Maybe I should just point him to Dear George


(it's a little dated, but you'll get the point quickly. lol)

Click to expand...

That's about spot on! lol

The good thing is, I've pretty much figured out with just 1 camera and 5 lenses that I should have went full frame the first time. So technically, I'd only be out about 1000. However, I'm too cheap to spend that much on a camera. So I'll stick with the crop and make due.

Yep, now it looks like the trend is to full frame mirrorless in Photography. It's always about the mfg's coming up with new products that make you want to throw your old stuff away and buy new gear. All of a sudden your old gear is not good enough for you and it is holding you back. You ultimately reach a point wether it is bikes, photography, or other stuff that it is not what you own that makes you but how you use what you got. Remember you ain't taking any of this stuff with you when you depart this life.

Since I still take about 80% of my pictures while rolling on the bikes or car or truck I still use my Canon G16 as my go to camera due to one handed operation. While the T3i with 4 lenses and XS50 and 2 other cameras just sit. Sigh!

Well the year is coming to a close. I started this thread to force me to get more familiar with my digital camera and learn how to use it effectively instead of letting it sit and then trying to relearn how to use it every time I decided to take some pics. Looking back at the year I think I have accomplished my initial goal and plan to keep it up in 2019.

Earlier this year I also decided to get my old film camera out (Canon TLB) and shoot some pics with it and see if it still worked so I could compare pics from the film format to digital format and see how big a difference there was. The Canon uses Canon's FD lenses and those lenses have good glass in them so I thought it would be an interesting comparison between an analog and digital format and see how far camera technology has come over 45 years. I had some old color negative film laying around so I popped a roll in and took some pics. The results were less than what I had hoped for (poor clarity, underexposed ). I thought the camera might have some problems since it was about 45 years old but I couldn't remember how old the film was so I thought I would try it again with some fresh film and see if that made a difference.

While waiting on the film to arrive I did some research and discovered that the battery that powers the internal light meter directly affects the light meter readings and since the camera was originally spec'd to use the 625 mercury battery and you can't get those any longer I discovered that the voltages on the new 625 replacements was not as consistent over time as what the mercury batteries were. The new non mercury replacement batteries don't have the same consistent voltage over time as the previous mercury batteries did and as such the voltage tends to drop off at a fairly consistent rate over time which affects the light meter readings. That partially explained why the first pics were somewhat underexposed but I am sure that the old film also had something to do with the quality of the pics. I didn't know exactly what to do about the battery and internal light meter since the camera would still work but you would have to use a off camera light meter for establishing the exposure. The battery in the camera only powered the internal light meter the rest of the operation was mechanical. I then found out that there was a battery with similar performance to the original mercury battery. It is called a Weincell battery and it has a similar voltage profile over time as the mercury battery did. I decided I would try it and see how it worked but I also purchased a light meter so I would have something to check the internal light meter and exposure against.


Anyway I took some pics earlier this year with it and then slacked off in the summer due to the heat and work and I finally got around to finishing up the roll of film and had it developed. The results were much better this time around and I am pleased with them. Based on the pics I plan to shoot some more rolls of film in both black and white and color negative in 2019. On a second subject, if anyone has a film camera they need repair or refurbishment on I found out there is a vintage camera repair and refurbishment place in Abilene and they specialize in repair and refurbishing vintage film cameras . I am planning on sending my TLB to them and let them check it over and clean it since i plan to shoot with it some more. The prices are reasonable and they are close by. I have posted some of the film shots below for anyone that is interested. Looking forward to 2019 and shooting some more.

Before I read the text, I scrolled through the shots above and thought to myself "...self - that filter/post-processing sure has a cool film look to it". Then I read the text.

I can't describe what the difference is in words, but film IS different, almost 3D different.

Nice way to end the year.

Presume no post processing? Very nice shots!

Thanks Scott, I really enjoyed taking the pics on a mechanical camera and seeing the results from the film. I agree with you in that film is different in a positive way. I think a lot of it is in the colors which vary depending on which film you are shooting. The above pics were shot with Ektar 100 and I really like the colors from this film. The bath house and the pic of my wife and I together above are good examples. I plan on shooting some more film in both black and white along with another roll of the Ektar 100. To me shooting film is in a way easier than shooting digital since you don't have as many settings and menus you have to navigate thru to get the shot. It doesn't hurt that I grew up shooting film before the digital age came about. In my opinion with film it forces you to slow down and focus more on the light and the shot. Also I am going to try some slide film to see if I can do that . Will probably use some Fuji Velvia 50 and 100 and see how it comes out. That may be scary.

Unfortunately, I sent my film camera out over the holidays to the Abilene Camera repair place to have it checked out and calibrated and the gentleman called me after he received it and said it would be 2-3 months before he could get to it since he has a pretty good backlog at this time. He asked if I wanted him to send back as he was trying to slow down a bit but I told him to go ahead and keep it and send it back when he finished. I was able to pick up a couple more of the FD lenses over the holidays that I am anxious to try so I think I am going to pick up a used Canon AE-1 or AE-1 program to use in the interim until I get my TLB back as all my current FD lenses will also fit on those bodies. There are plenty of them on E bay and they are priced so low that it's a no brainer not to pick up one that is in good shape and has been serviced.

For folks that want to shoot film the advantage is that you can pick up good film cameras and lenses very cheaply. The upfront costs is minimal compared to a good digital SLR camera. For $500 you can pretty much pick up a good film camera and a couple of good lenses and start shooting. The drownside if the film developing cost but for the 36 roll I shot the cost for development, prints, and scanning to CD was only about $25. In retrospect I should have just done the developing and scanning to a CD which would have dropped the cost even more.

I may start another thread for 2019 with just film pics in it so stay tuned.

julimike54 said:

Presume no post processing? Very nice shots!

Click to expand...

Mike , I did import them into my computer via the CD but I did very little in the way of post processing. I made some minor exposure and sharpening adjustments on some of them but for the most part the pics are the same as the prints.