Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »
 41 
 on: Today at 05:24:13 PM 
Started by dandeliondigital - Last post by dandeliondigital
Just noticed that I am competing with a $150 REBATE on this item, so I am willing to match the rebate, so adjust the price by $150 less.

Let me know if you are interested at tom@dandeliondigital.com

Thanks, and so long for now, Tom

 42 
 on: Today at 05:23:18 PM 
Started by Hans Kruse - Last post by Chris Kern
This leads me to the thought that Lightroom as a licensed product should be discontinued in order to allow Adobe to do the logical merge of Lightroom and ACR into a single module that is used from both Lightroom and Photoshop and to get rid of the arcane UI of ACR and therefore allow a tighter integration between Lightroom and Photoshop.

Better yet, how about Lightroom bundled with a new pixel editor that offered the Photoshop features (and only those features) that photographers still turn to Photoshop for.  Stripped of the more esoteric functionality and complexity that other graphic artists require—esoteric from a photographic perspective, at least—it should be possible to equip this new pixel editor with a user agent whose controls were congruent with Lightroom's.  ACR already does this: invoked from Lightroom it is Lightroom-like, invoked from Photoshop, it is ... ahhh ... not so nice.

As I recall, Jeff Schewe mentioned the possibility of something like this a while back.

 43 
 on: Today at 05:22:27 PM 
Started by Bob_B - Last post by RSL
+1

 44 
 on: Today at 05:12:35 PM 
Started by Bob_B - Last post by petermfiore
Congratulations!!!

Peter

 45 
 on: Today at 05:11:22 PM 
Started by Damon Lynch - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic
Shrinkage of the consumer segment for camera makers is not that really new. What follows is not a deep analysis, but rather sharing some anecdotal evidence.

Back in 70s-80s, where I grew up, it was quite popular to flaunt an SLR, Canikon if possible (i.e., not Practicas or Zenits). Then consumer video cameras became the talk of the town and everybody who is anybody had to have one. Then it was Hi-Fi. But my friends and I did not abandon SLRs. We instead sifted through classifieds, looking for bargains, created by those who were selling their cameras and lenses to make room for the latest fad.

I guess what I am getting at is that there has always been a core of photographers that are the loyal clientele for camera makers. Just as Canikons of the world survived the surge and fall of consumers chasing the latest fad in the 70s and 80s, counting on their loyal core (i.e., enthusiasts and pros), they will do it again. Smaller perhaps, consolidated, etc. But even back then, they did not survive by just shrinking, but by innovating along the way. Auto exposure, micro-processors, eye-focus, auto-focus, etc. If you can't expand the customer base, you can at least entice existing customers into upgrading more frequently. But you have to excite them, not just offer a bit more chrome here and there. And that is the gist of what Michael is saying.


 46 
 on: Today at 05:09:18 PM 
Started by Damon Lynch - Last post by mezzoduomo

Thx, Andrew. Your blog post was quite interesting and definitely worth the time.
This thread, on the other hand..... Roll Eyes


 47 
 on: Today at 05:06:22 PM 
Started by alifatemi - Last post by Telecaster
An important part of my B&W workflow is to find an artistically pleasing B&W interpretation of the scene in post. That is only possible by shooting color RAW. That alone takes Leica Monochrom from my list of possible cameras, not to mention the cost. I might loose a bit in resolution (unless using Nikon D800 series), but gain much much more in other possibilities in forming the final B&W rendition.

This is certainly a valid approach, and one I tried (to like) during the mid & latter 2000s. But the approach that works best for me is the opposite: dial in a pleasing monochrome palette in-camera, then stick with it. Or use b&w film. This means using JPEGs with CFA'd-sensor cameras, which is fine 'cuz I then expose as though I'm using a b&w transparency film like Agfa Scala. Little post work wanted or needed. Options deliberately limited. An advantage with EVF cameras is that I can see what I'm getting in the finder as I do it. With film, or with the Monochrom in my limited experience with it, a few filters are enough to tilt the overall tonality a bit as desired.

-Dave-

 48 
 on: Today at 05:00:49 PM 
Started by sgwrx - Last post by sgwrx
hello,

this covers printing, post processing and shooting so i'm not sure where to post exactly, but i definitely consider myself a beginner Smiley

just wanted feed back on my ideas to see if i'm making progress. 

my old printing, back when i had the epson r2400, i typically didn't do much in terms of color. i would soft-proof look for some warnings and then globally back off saturation or curves/levels and then print. often i felt "ok" but not overwhelmed.

now, i'm starting to take the image and take advantage of things like gamut warning and cranking up the saturation.  using curves to get some details in shadows and recover some highlights.  i think what i'm learning is, it's OK to push and pull, sometimes to an extreme.  then decide what to do with those gamut warning colors.

example, i had a photo of a grave site.  i soft proofed for epson premium glossy paper and then started to crank up the saturation which resulted in clear blue sky going completely pink (warning)!  rather than back off, i decided to play with the hue/saturation of the blue colors and low and behold the pink went away!  i mostly changed the hue of the sky which ended up knocking it back into gamut but also took away the saturated cyan look of it and made it more sky-blue but still saturated. i even found adjusting the slider for lightness in different color ranges would help with gamut warnings.  the rest of the colors, green grass, various green trees, even a red-maple look great and are not outside gamut.  reds, as in flowers and an american flag, still seem to pop (in a print) even though i had to locally desaturate them a bit with the sponge tool.

i think what i'm finding is, getting what you want out of a photo is not all global adjustments and perfect exposure.  now, i do know that exposure is very important and i'm brushing up on that.  but i think i gave myself the expectation that it has to be 100% correct strait from the camera (colors, highlights, shadows etc).  that is a fairly frustrating approach.

i also think i'm starting to understand that each aspect of capturing an image has decidedly discreet components.  for example exposure or multiple exposures and blending them together, can have a huge impact.  adjusting color, adjusting levels, curves and sharpness (local contrast or edge) each has it's own impact that may or may not impact each other.

thanks,

 49 
 on: Today at 04:49:24 PM 
Started by PeterAit - Last post by BobShaw
Well when you do a nozzle check presumably you use plain paper. I have used plain paper in my 3880 occasionally. It is just expensive compared to an office printer, but if it's all you have then I can't see a problem.

 50 
 on: Today at 04:46:20 PM 
Started by PeterAit - Last post by disneytoy
Same K3 in as my r2400 or 3880. So I don't think it shouldn't work.

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »