 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TomOC
|
This is especially recommended for Fuji x users... http://www.fujirumors.com/mixed-zone-the-valley-of-ghosts-x-talk-x-reviews-and-iridient-developer/ Haven't tried it yet, but plan to over this weekend... |
|||||||||
jk
|
Look forward to hearing what you think. I am using Capture Pro very happily but Lightzone looks like a good alternative. I especially like the fact that it is Linux, Windows and Mac. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
I played with I last night... Good news and mostly bad news. It's an excellent converter. Does very good color balance and sharpeninge - excellent. Bad news. It's some what klunky ( but easy to save presets) and expensive. Worst it only supports a limited number of format - Nikon is not one of the, but Fuji is...go figure. Off the list :) |
|||||||||
jk
|
Version 4 of Lightzone is free. It has gone open source which meansit should get a lot more populartity. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
TomOC wrote:I played with I last night... Good news and mostly bad news. Thanks for looking out for us Tom....keep on the searching.:thumbsup: |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Eric wrote:TomOC wrote:/quote] Eric- I'm sort of fit to be tied over this whole thing. I've upgraded almost every version of PS with grudging attitudes over the increasingly restrictive licesnses and increasing prices with little improvement in the product...though there was always the new ACR codecs that I felt I really had no choice about. Since I haven't been able to settle on just what I would do without PS, I went ahead and signed up for the $9.99 per month "upgrade." That price is good for one year (and I found out after the fact that it isn't really monthly but an annual committment paid monthly - don't' get me started  . In the meantime, I bit the bullet and purchased a copy of Capture One 7. I really have no idea yet if that can replace photoshop altogether. It does not work with all the plugins I have, but some of them work as a standalone, so that may not matter. Phase One says they are open to including plugins but seem to be mainly interested in plugins to work with tethered cameras than for post processing...we'll see. Meanwhile, there is no question that there are options to PS. None seem to have it all in one package like PS but that may well change in the next year. I feel very little is improved in any way in CC over CS6. The shakey camera removal is a gimmick. The only change that is perhaps addictively useful is the ability to use ACR as a filter from within PS. That is really pretty cool and can be timesaving. The rest is really almost identical to CS6 PS. So if I can get comfortable with a workflow that is smooth in converting raw either into CS 6 or get used to Capture one, I definitely will not be continuing my subscription to PS. Actually, at $9.99 I probably would but why irritate myself like that. If I can get off the adobe heroin, I will be better off |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I am perfectly comfortable with older versions of PS. Although I have CS6 on the same computer, I instinctively use CS3 for all my editing. Not sure why??? Probably nothing more than the devil I know. I am frustrated at the inability to use ACR, which I find acceptable for raw conversion (maybe I am easily pleasd?), when I upgrade camera bodies. But the requirement to buy complete editing software upgrades for the sake of a bolt on converter, I find insidious. It even encourages me to improve my photography so people won't notice if I shoot it in jpeg.   TomOC wrote: Eric wrote: |
|||||||||
jk
|
TomOC wrote: In the meantime, I bit the bullet and purchased a copy of Capture One 7. I really have no idea yet if that can replace photoshop altogether. It does not work with all the plugins I have, but some of them work as a standalone, so that may not matter. Phase One says they are open to including plugins but seem to be mainly interested in plugins to work with tethered cameras than for post processing...we'll see. I also use CPro7 but I dont think that it can work well for end to end workflow without Photoshop. Even Acorn Editor instead of Photoshop is not sufficient IMHO. I really think that Adobe have dropped the ball -big time-. ACR could be made to work with any version of Photoshop if they wanted but instead they have got greedy and re1uire you to upgrade the version of Photoshop. ACR should be a stand alone chargeable product. It might be costed the same as a Photoshop Elements license but at that price they could then afford to reduce the cost of Photoshop by the same amount. But if they charged ACR at half the price of Photoshop Elements they would still make a considerable profit. Greedy, greedy Adobe and you wonder why PirateBay exists. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
jk wrote:
Couldn't agree more. Greedy and STUPID...they are trying to squeeze more and more out of a smaller and smaller universe rather than try to win with innovation. And maybe that is all they can do, since they have really lost their way as innovators - they spend more time trying to thwart pirates than improving their software in m opinion. I've only been using the full version of CApture One for a couple of nights - actually mostly watching some of their terrific tutorials more than "using." I still think that it might work along with OnOne Perfect Photo suite which I have come to really really love (I started using it about 3 months ago and have found that I hardly ever launch NIK plugins now). What I still object to with Capture One is the catalog concept (though I'm trying to figure out a way to adapt to it) and the sessions concept is even weirder (I learn now that I've bought the software . Why in the world don't all of these apps just let you open a file and edit it????? |
|||||||||
richw
|
jk wrote:
Isn't that basically Lightroom? |
|||||||||
jk
|
richw wrote: jk wrote:Not as I see it. I dont want the features of Lightroom only the RAW conversion to allow me to edit a TIFF or JPG in the Photoshop version of my preference. I find Lightroom interface to be very clunky. Maybe this is done to protect the innocent so they dont inadvertently edit images! I cannot for the life of me understand why I need to change modules from Library to Develop to do some small changes to an image (sharpening, curves, spotting). It is just poor interface design as it slows down the process of editing whilst cataloguing. I think that ACR should be charged at £40-£50 per version. So I should be able to use ACR v23 with Photoshop 7 or ACR v20 with CS6 if that is what I want. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
richw wrote:jk wrote: Rich- ACR is everything LR is and more...it is an integrated part of the PS workflow similar to the way plugins are. To my way of seeing it, LR is a prettified version of Elements burdened by the insane catalog system. Actually, all we may NEED is a prettified version of Elements, so that was not necessarily a criticism. But we do NOT need the catalogs. Anyone who has set up a good DAM system over the years does not need this catalog concept that so many app developers are embracing. They are embracing it because it ENSLAVES the user to their apps, not because it is the best or safest way to manage your files. I know you like the CS (so I suppose CC) system because you have needs for the whole library of apps - for you, it's a very good deal to pay $50 per month since you use 5 or 6 of the apps. For the rest of use who use only photoshop (and ACR), it is a terrible deal. Especially terrible for the folks who do not upgrade every version...not to mention the fact that many of us are fairly independent crochety old geezers who don't want to be forced into anything |
|||||||||
jk
|
TomOC wrote:...not to mention the fact that many of us are fairly independent crochety old geezers who don't want to be forced into anythingTom that is not correct. I am a very independent and highly crochety old geezer who hates parting with his money to large corporates !! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I have a swiss army knife and I have never used someof the tools...and probably never will. Having all the tools in place means I invariably pull out a couple of the wrong tools before I get the one I want. Really annoying. I've often wondered why they don't offer clip in tools...so you can buy and fit just the ones YOU will use. It's the same with software. Having selected the editing package I like, I would just like to add on the additional tools I need. Why do I have to buy another complete package that duplicates many of my editing package functions just to get a simple add on function...like a raw file converter?? |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote: I have a swiss army knife and I have never used someof the tools...and probably never will. Having all the tools in place means I invariably pull out a couple of the wrong tools before I get the one I want. Really annoying. Yes exactly. Especially when the new product keeps adding in extra functionality that I dont need. So when have I ever wanted to do puppet/stick animation? I am sure someone wants it but sell it as Adobe Puppeteer or Adobe Animator. |
|||||||||
richw
|
TomOC wrote:richw wrote: Well CC aside, there is actually nothing in ACR that is not in Lightroom and for the editing part nothing in Lightroom that is not in ACR, they are identical. I do take your point about Lightroom also being a DAM solution as well, but for most users of the product they want that. Lightroom is also available to purchase outside the CS/CC model currently (unlike Photoshop). |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Rich- I didn't state that well... comparing ACR to LR is like comparing Apple to PCs... Not to start a system war, but the main thing that Apple has is an eco system that is integrated. ACR is integrated to PS and PS to the plugins. LR is integrated to catalogs (sigh). Half of the time I'm firing up PS is to find one file and maybe tweak it and then print it. The DAM system in LR is a negative to me and if it could just be turned off never to be seen again, the LR might be fine for me. I understand that many users of LR do want the DAM system. That's probably because they don't have one already. It will be interesting to see how much they like it 5 or 10 years down the road when they might have a couple hundred thousand images in it. As far as I can see, the app developers love the DAM catalog systems...it handcuffs you to their product. Over a 40 year history, I have gone from binders of printed contact sheets/binders of neg strips numbered and stored to (after scanning all of them), several different digital solutions, the latest of which is Media Pro for the archive and Photo Mechanic for the IPTC and keywords. Each time I made the switch (except for the one from binders) I was able to import the old data pretty much without a hitch. I don't see that happening with catalogs from Aperture, LR or Capture One. Nor do I see them as systems that are easily networked and easily updated to store a second complete backup on an offsite machine. Sorry for the rant... Tom |
|||||||||
richw
|
Tom, Lightroom is also fully integrated to Photoshop. I have both open normally they interact nicely together and you can move from one to other seamlessly. Just cmd click on the image and choose 'Edit in Photshop'. All the ACR adjustments are applied just as if you had opened in Photoshop ACR and clicked OK. You can also run HDR and Panoramic stitching right from within Lightroom. However to keep your ACR in photoshop up to date you need to update photoshop, Lightroom will integrate and work with any version of photoshop and the update cost of Lightroom is small compared to Photoshop and doesn't require the CC model. It willll aso integrate into elements if you wish. You do get the Dam and other features but did you know you can actually hide modules if you don't want them? I think this is the closest you will get to stand alone ACR. |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Rich- Hiding the catalog module is something I didn't know about. I'll have to look into that. I thought you had to create a catalog before you could actually open an image in LR. For now, I'm spending my time trying to get up to speed with Capture One7 - they have a catalog system in this version that seems to be identical to LR but they also have another system called Sessions which is half way between clean and a catalog. For the life of me, I wonder how people who have multiple computers and who move images around can ever just fire one up, find the image they were looking for and make a little tweak and print it. I have 2 locations, 3 computers and two external HDDs that I archive to at the end of each month (and then copy files and physically transport to the 2nd one which is at the other location). I just don't see how I can do that in any of the catalog situations. I still have a lot to learn about Capture One but it looks like it will do most of what photoshop does and a few things it doesn't. For sure the raw converter is equal to and most people feel better than ACR. I have to work through 20 years of photoshop-think to really evaluate CO7 properly. If that doesn't work, I definitely have to do more research on LR ... But that ties me once again to Adobe... |
|||||||||
richw
|
At the end of the day there are many perfectly acceptable solutions and methods out there, which you use is not really important - the only things that matter are the work you produce and how much you enjoy the process. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |