Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Question for Nikon D810 shooters  (Read 27130 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13883
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #40 on: January 07, 2015, 05:33:15 pm »


No, you wrote "...more natural/pin pointed highlight recovery/shadow brightening,... You don't get any of the fake/cheap HDR look often seen in landscape shots." in reply #17 and that's what some of us thought had a deeper meaning that you might share with us. But I think it is clear that it was stray comment that should not be taken seriously. So as you say... end of story ;)

Exactly, please consider the "cheap HDR look"part as hyperbole. I should not have written it, that isn't the important part.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 734
    • H.Bowman
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #41 on: January 07, 2015, 05:38:51 pm »

Oh, now it is soul :) Wow, can you show us?

More technically I would say more vibrancy/warm/contrast, but very well adjusted by default. By default ACR is all but not optimal. I think it is very possible to obtain the same results in ACR but you will need more time and manipulations.

As professionals we want to spend less and less time in PP, I think it is the goal of a good software and, accessory, the goal of most photographers.

As I said, download the darn thing and try it, it is free. Over and out.

(forum bickering is also time consuming, and weird).
« Last Edit: January 07, 2015, 05:41:04 pm by Hulyss »
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #42 on: January 07, 2015, 05:44:58 pm »

Exactly, please consider the "cheap HDR look"part as hyperbole. I should not have written it, that isn't the important part.

Cheers,
Bernard


Ok, end of story ;)

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2015, 05:52:25 pm »

More technically I would say more vibrancy/warm/contrast, but very well adjusted by default. By default ACR is all but not optimal. I think it is very possible to obtain the same results in ACR but you will need more time and manipulations.

As professionals we want to spend less and less time in PP, I think it is the goal of a good software and, accessory, the goal of most photographers.

As I said, download the darn thing and try it, it is free. Over and out.

(forum bickering is also time consuming, and weird).

I have a license for C1 version 7 and have tried version 8 as well. I agree that the default normally looks better in C1, but being used to Lightroom it is no problem to edit to my style and it is quick to do.

I will not defend that I found your post a bit funny as it would be better if you had something to contribute on the matter rather than opinions with no substance. I have tried many times to compare C1 and LR when some people claim that this and that is better in C1 and In always found that there was no advantage in switching. And as you know switching is a pain. The only real way to switch (in my opinion) would be to to do a clean switch and then only keep old edits in the old software. I have thousands of edits in Lightroom that I would like to keep, so a switch would be a serious matter.

I'm using LR for my D810 and I'm happy with it in that I can do what I need to do. I'm sure you can be happy with C1 as I once was long time ago.

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 734
    • H.Bowman
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2015, 06:04:16 pm »

I have a license for C1 version 7 and have tried version 8 as well. I agree that the default normally looks better in C1, but being used to Lightroom it is no problem to edit to my style and it is quick to do.

I will not defend that I found your post a bit funny as it would be better if you had something to contribute on the matter rather than opinions with no substance. I have tried many times to compare C1 and LR when some people claim that this and that is better in C1 and In always found that there was no advantage in switching. And as you know switching is a pain. The only real way to switch (in my opinion) would be to to do a clean switch and then only keep old edits in the old software. I have thousands of edits in Lightroom that I would like to keep, so a switch would be a serious matter.

I'm using LR for my D810 and I'm happy with it in that I can do what I need to do. I'm sure you can be happy with C1 as I once was long time ago.

Well, my way of using Lr or C1 are absolutely not conventional. First, I do not like to rely on a software catalogue. For that I have my own methodology. So, for Lr, I just used the editing side and trashed the catalogue after work. I do the same with C1 sessions. I did a full switch and even got a little "webinar" from Lr to C1 and, deeply, C1 give me results I didn't get on Lr. The code used by C1 isn't the same as adobe, the difference is visible without any manipulations.

I do not keep my edits; only the raw and the tiff under different color profiles.

But for the D810 (I'm renting it almost every week actually) C1 is better. My wife still use Lr ;)
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13883
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #45 on: January 07, 2015, 06:09:13 pm »

I'm using LR for my D810 and I'm happy with it in that I can do what I need to do. I'm sure you can be happy with C1 as I once was long time ago.

Yes, exactly, I used to work with LR as my main converter and thought it was the best. ;)

Considering the workshops you are teaching also, LR makes a lot of sense as it must be used by a majority of your clients.

In you are on Mac, I would also consider Iridient Developper. I could share an email discussion with Brian about his recommendation to achieve the highest possible level of detail/punch with the Beta 4 of Iridient Developper 3.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: January 07, 2015, 06:16:06 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2145
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #46 on: January 07, 2015, 06:28:59 pm »

I could share an email discussion with Brian about his recommendation to achieve the highest possible level of detail/punch with the Beta 4 of Iridient Developper 3.

Please do.

Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13883
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #47 on: January 07, 2015, 06:51:49 pm »

Please do.

Will do by PM tonight as it was a private cconversation in a specific context.

Cheers,
Bernard

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2145
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #48 on: January 07, 2015, 06:59:35 pm »

Will do by PM tonight as it was a private cconversation in a specific context.

Many thanks, Bernard, much appreciated.

Best,
M
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3918
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #49 on: January 07, 2015, 07:47:05 pm »

... I did a full switch and even got a little "webinar" from Lr to C1 and, deeply, C1 give me results I didn't get on Lr. The code used by C1 isn't the same as adobe, the difference is visible without any manipulations.
....

so then why don't you spend 5 minutes and developbbernards image in  c1... ?
 ( instead of proving a picture is more than a 1000.000.000.... words  ;))
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 734
    • H.Bowman
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #50 on: January 08, 2015, 02:08:25 am »

so then why don't you spend 5 minutes and developbbernards image in  c1... ?
 ( instead of proving a picture is more than a 1000.000.000.... words  ;))

Because in margin of photography (my enterprise), and because of my knowledge of landscape and geology (my former studies), I'm working all day long at crafting photo-realist  terrains for MMORPG. So when I come on a forum, to chill out, to give me some oxygen, I want all but not opening any other software, especially when those software can be tested fully for free by any one of you. So I invite you to spend 5 minutes to download C1 and making your own opinion. Yes, you can.

This is my last creation (untextured yet because in morphing). This map is a bit more the size of half Corsica in real time. It is composed of hundreds terrains that I need to stitch meter by meters perfectly ... Ho ! I'm a bit off topic.

 
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 3918
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #51 on: January 08, 2015, 05:18:04 am »

And i have expired my trail of C1 before entering this thread...alas..

btw i am a physical geographer- but photographer now.

OK i give up.
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #52 on: January 08, 2015, 06:40:22 am »

Yes, exactly, I used to work with LR as my main converter and thought it was the best. ;)

Considering the workshops you are teaching also, LR makes a lot of sense as it must be used by a majority of your clients.

In you are on Mac, I would also consider Iridient Developper. I could share an email discussion with Brian about his recommendation to achieve the highest possible level of detail/punch with the Beta 4 of Iridient Developper 3.

The criteria for choice of tools is about what works best for me overall. There are maybe some aspects in another converter like e.g. C1 that is marginally or even considerably better than LR (not that I have found any). The way I use LR is that it is where I keep all my photos and the DAM part is very valuable. I also maintain galleries on my two main sites plus Flickr entirely LR. I also like to avoid TIFF's for a number of reasons when not needed. It would certainly be possible to use a "3rd party" RAW converter and manage the result within LR. Even do further adjustments in LR if needed. However it does break my normal workflow just like using pano stitching software, plugins like NIK software and others. I prefer to do all within LR without ever creating a TIFF file if possible. So with this philosophy there need to be a significant advantage before going for another RAW converter. E.g. NIK software where I have found that I can do very similar b&w conversions in LR but with some more work, so I use LR. I do sometimes go to NIK Silver Efex Pro just to see how different presets will look and get inspiration for a conversion which I then do in LR. Although LR does have some weaknesses (like halos on backlit black objects) it generally does a very good job. I did find checking C1 v8 that the range of the HDR sliders are considerably wider than highlights and shadows in LR which is very useful in some high DR scenes. I use the local adjustment tools in LR to compensate for this.

I have looked previously at Irridient Developper as many other RAW converters, but I see no reason to look further into this. But thanks for the offer.

Lightroom is not the main topic for my workshops, but I do show my edits in Lightroom and how I achieve the look of my images. Much of that is applicable also to C1, I would say, although the sliders are different but there are equivalent ones to LR. The main parts of my workshops are the shoots and locations that I have found over the years, technical and compositorial advice and image critiques. I usually also do a LR tutorial on the optional extra days and I show how I edit in LR. Almost everybody today uses LR when they come on my workshops. Some use ACR and Photoshop and very few C1 and almost nobody anything else. A few still use Aperture and most consider moving to LR.

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #53 on: January 08, 2015, 06:46:35 am »

Well, my way of using Lr or C1 are absolutely not conventional. First, I do not like to rely on a software catalogue. For that I have my own methodology. So, for Lr, I just used the editing side and trashed the catalogue after work. I do the same with C1 sessions. I did a full switch and even got a little "webinar" from Lr to C1 and, deeply, C1 give me results I didn't get on Lr. The code used by C1 isn't the same as adobe, the difference is visible without any manipulations.

I do not keep my edits; only the raw and the tiff under different color profiles.

But for the D810 (I'm renting it almost every week actually) C1 is better. My wife still use Lr ;)

I agree this is unconventional and I do not quite understand why you choose to do it this way. But it certainly means you have a free choice every time you start a new shoot and edit.

You should really buy the D810 :)

Hulyss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 734
    • H.Bowman
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #54 on: January 08, 2015, 07:29:56 am »

I do not need the D810 for my personal use; my D700 feel all my needs. I'd rather wait for the new Dfs in 2016 (or buying a used D4).
Logged
Kind Regards -  Hulyss Bowman | hulyssbowman.com |

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2145
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #55 on: January 08, 2015, 09:32:15 am »

I'm sure you can be happy with C1 as I once was long time ago.

C1 and Lr are both premium RAW converters. Lr has a more extensive feature set than C1, both in pp (the plug-in architecture), DAM and printing to name but a few. Arguably, C1 is the tool of choice for pros if for no other reason than its tethering capabilities, qualitative output and is the 'only' converter for PhaseOne backs.

Comparing the two, as RAW converters, should be dependent primarily on IQ and camera. Comparisons based on workflow are an entirely different subject.

Lr5 was released in June 2012. C1 has since gone through 2 product cycles, 7 & 8. If you want a reasonable comparison , best to wait for the soon-to-be-released Lr6. Only then will you be able to make a 'fair' comparison as to what improvements have been made in regard to demosaic-ing since the last 'major' release.

Iridient Developer is an excellent converter. Until C1 v8, the only converter for x-trans, the Merrills and a few others. It has an extensive 'supported cameras' list, including support for the Pentax 645 (both models), Leica S, Hasselblad and Phase.  Integrates very well with C1 , a bit less so with Lr.  Well worth the modest outlay (if for no other reason than its sharpening options).

C1 is a massively improved converter. If you aren't experienced or at the very least haven't used it, in its latest incarnation, you're not in a position to voice any kind of informed opinion on its capabilities. Incidentally, if you are indeed a PODAS instructor, what do you use on their workshops ?

Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #56 on: January 08, 2015, 09:52:33 am »

C1 and Lr are both premium RAW converters. Lr has a more extensive feature set than C1, both in pp (the plug-in architecture), DAM and printing to name but a few. Arguably, C1 is the tool of choice for pros if for no other reason than its tethering capabilities, qualitative output and is the 'only' converter for PhaseOne backs.

Comparing the two, as RAW converters, should be dependent primarily on IQ and camera. Comparisons based on workflow are an entirely different subject.

Lr5 was released in June 2012. C1 has since gone through 2 product cycles, 7 & 8. If you want a reasonable comparison , best to wait for the soon-to-be-released Lr6. Only then will you be able to make a 'fair' comparison as to what improvements have been made in regard to demosaic-ing since the last 'major' release.

Iridient Developer is an excellent converter. Until C1 v8, the only converter for x-trans, the Merrills and a few others. It has an extensive 'supported cameras' list, including support for the Pentax 645 (both models), Leica S, Hasselblad and Phase.  Integrates very well with C1 , a bit less so with Lr.  Well worth the modest outlay (if for no other reason than its sharpening options).

C1 is a massively improved converter. If you aren't experienced or at the very least haven't used it, in its latest incarnation, you're not in a position to voice any kind of informed opinion on its capabilities. Incidentally, if you are indeed a PODAS instructor, what do you use on their workshops ?



Thanks for you response, but I think I explained reasonably well how I see Lightroom for my use. I'm not looking for a different RAW converter if that is what you think. Regarding Phase One camera backs I used Lightroom as the main converter while I had a Phase Camera for one year. I did, of course, on a number of occasions use C1 as well. I'm only shooting Canon and Nikon cameras at the moment and LR is working well for me. I totally disagree that the other features in LR is irrelevant. They are highly relevant and as I mentioned I would only use a different RAW converter with Lightroom (than the built-in ACR engine) in case there was a significant advantage. I have not seen that or got that demonstrated in case I had missed something. I'm not saying that LR is perfect. In my view Lightroom is a very good photographers workbench and it happens to have an excellent RAW converter and editing engine. So I'm not looking anywhere else, sorry ;)

dwswager

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1375
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #57 on: January 08, 2015, 10:38:44 am »

As I said before, I use ACR mostly and sometimes Capture One. 

I use ACR not because I know it to be the best or even better, but because of a long history of use.  I know how to make it do what I want.  With Capture One, I can make it function, but I am not proficient. 

If I was starting fresh, I would first explore Nikon Capture...again.  It should have the highest performance with the least effort considering it knows the NEF format and cameras the best.  Then others including ACR, eventuating the strengths and weaknesses of each.

This again is an area where knowing the tool can outweigh the tool itself.  One tool might be better, at least at some things, but unless you understand it and know how to manipulate it, the advantage is wasted.  I just don't have the time or inclination to try and learn multiple tools, especially when their operations paradigms so different.
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2145
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #58 on: January 08, 2015, 10:45:10 am »

So I'm not looking anywhere else, sorry.

No need to apologise, Hans, I'm not selling !  The post was also partly related to the OP's question ..

I totally disagree that the other features in LR is irrelevant.

I don't recall using the word 'irrelevant' anywhere in my post.

It so happens that we use Lr in similar fashion. The only difference, from what you say, is that I also integrate C1 and Iridient into my workflow on an 'as-needed' basis !

Best,
M

Logged

Hans Kruse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2102
    • Hans Kruse Photography
Re: Question for Nikon D810 shooters
« Reply #59 on: January 09, 2015, 05:07:08 pm »

No need to apologise, Hans, I'm not selling !  The post was also partly related to the OP's question ..

I don't recall using the word 'irrelevant' anywhere in my post.

It so happens that we use Lr in similar fashion. The only difference, from what you say, is that I also integrate C1 and Iridient into my workflow on an 'as-needed' basis !

Best,
M



The word 'irrelevant' actually came from your comment on workflow. To me workflow is a very important part for me. I agree that you can do as you suggest what is similar to what I commented on as well. But is gets messy and if not needed I would avoid it. So in essence the way I judge using other tools is that the difference they need to make is significant before I would brake the workflow. The reason for that is that my style changes over time, maybe not drastically, but still enough that I go back and reedit some of my best pictures and then it is an advantage that I can see all the edits I have done and if I have done the edits in another tool I can start from scratch (which I do sometimes anyway), however I like to see what I have done and modify from there. But that is the way I work and I'm not trying to convince others to work that way :)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up