Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 12:08:02 PM 
Started by texshooter - Last post by Kaypee
Are you using Topaz through Lightroom or PS? I want to test it and guess PS with have more accurate adjustments but LR allows you to work on the RAW file. Which is best?

 on: Today at 12:01:57 PM 
Started by armand - Last post by Petrus
Using that angle is one well-established method for describing what is after all officially known as "angular field of view", but maybe a bit difficult for many camera users to adapt to.

After a while people would get used to it, and after a while it would feel like the only sensible way to describe the angular field of view, now described in all kinds of roundabout ways as "equivalent focal lengths". It is the picture angle we are actually talking about when talking about focal lengths anyway. We need the actual millimeters only when doing focus distance and DOF calculations, and nobody does that anymore...

 on: Today at 11:50:03 AM 
Started by David Eckels - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic
... After converting a copy of his "Printer Gamut Test File" to sRGB in PSCC2014, I saved it as a 16-bit tiff along with his original, imported them into LR6, ensuring that I was in the ProPhoto working space...

I am confused...

1. How do you "ensure you are in the ProPhoto working space" in LR?

2. Why would you take an sRGB file and then "ensure you are in the ProPhoto working space"

 on: Today at 11:49:56 AM 
Started by Hans Kruse - Last post by ButchM
Why does it matter to you who exactly implemented the features as long as if they get into Lightroom?

Yes, Hans spelled it out quite clearly.

If the bulk of new features and improvements actually come from the ACR Team ... exactly what did the Lightroom Team bring to the party for Lr 6? It's an honest question. As you can see from the responses, Hans (and myself) are not the only Lightroom users who have considered this question.

While we can see that Facial Recognition was added to Library, the return of multiple audio tracks (which has taken four full version cycles to get back) and a rudimentary pan and zoom feature in the Slideshow module and finally an update in the Web module (which basically hasn't seen much attention since v1) to replace the antiquated and obsolete Flash galleries. In the time it took to get these simple additions to modules that have been included in Lr since Day One ... Adobe had time to develop and add Maps, Books allowing multiple original modules to languish for several version cycles before addressing the finer details ...

This is the third full version cycle for Lightroom and we still can't do something so simple as create custom page sizes, margins and bleeds. Yet Adobe expects us all to pay them for such incredible progress and advancements.

For me, while I am not ungrateful for what has been offered. Collectively, if you look at the modules other than Develop ... what have been the goals and actual accomplishments of the Lr team itself?  I'm not blaming the individual engineers that crunch the code ... but the management and accounting "teams" that dictate what the engineers are assigned to work on. Sometimes it seems as though they utilize a dartboard and a blindfold to establish their goals for module development and refinement.

As long as Adobe includes these other modules, I would like to see them offer the same level of enthusiasm and attention to detail in ALL the modules, not just the favorites. If Lightroom is to be a true workflow solution ... it would be nice if they would actually complete a current project before adding new features.

 on: Today at 11:43:16 AM 
Started by mseawell - Last post by sdwilsonsct
So many layers to ensnare the eye. Smiley

 on: Today at 11:42:50 AM 
Started by torger - Last post by AlterEgo
How much of a value that is in the Lightroom user interface I guess is a personal thing. I don't use Lightroom much, but I guess you typically start off with "As shot" white balance, and the profile won't affect the WB multipliers provided by the camera, if the color matrix is off an incorrect temperature translation will show though.
offtopic, but - I use ACR, my "as shot" WB is always UniWB, so I start with "auto" WB or I subjectively type something between 4500-6500 with zero tint based on whether I want it colder/warmer in general...

 on: Today at 11:41:53 AM 
Started by TuomasU - Last post by syuriman
Hi, I'm waiting your reply.

 on: Today at 11:41:20 AM 
Started by Paulo Bizarro - Last post by sdwilsonsct
In 1 I like the hourglass made by waves and mountain.

 on: Today at 11:31:20 AM 
Started by torger - Last post by AlterEgo
If the measurement data is the same, the forward matrix should not change if you specify a different calibration illuminant, yes that is correct. The reason for this is that the forward matrix specifies conversion from white-balanced camera RGB to XYZ D50, that is always D50 regardless of calibration illuminant, that is the same way as ICC profiles do.

yes, _but_ ... I have raw rgb data from the actual target shot (from raw) and the actual target measurements, sprectral, from i1pro2 (which brings its own illumination) combined in .ti3 file ... now that I have the actual illuminant in .sp then I 'd assume that the data in .ti3 file shall be adjusted somewhat to account for that, no ? raw RGB data stays the same, because it is what it is - but now that we have the spectral data of the actual illumination during the shot that shall change how target measurements now are... unless I am missing something very simple... I mean why only CM change shall be enough to account for that ?

 on: Today at 11:31:04 AM 
Started by stamper - Last post by stamper
Love the lines and the shadow. My only problem is the halo around the woman (easily seen in the thumbnail version), is the effect intended?

I processed this 12 years ago so I don't remember. Found it on one of my hard drives today. I like the effect and it is my "vision" of the image. Smiley On hindsight it looks like she is walking through what looks like a shaft of light.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »