Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Why Do I need Lightroom?

Reply
Thread Tools

Why Do I need Lightroom?

 
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2007
Annika1980 wrote:
> On May 29, 10:26 pm, "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
> here)@cox..net> wrote:
>> I'll receive my 1D3 tomorrow morning...

>
> Did I ever tell you how much I hate you, PW?
>
> You sure about that AM delivery? Last time I checked that shipping
> info the FEDEX truck was just south of Nashville.


That's OK. It ain't on Fed-Ex...

> The first thing I would do with the 1D3 is to use it's most unique
> feature.
> Canon discovered that various lenses work differently with different
> bodies so a lens like the 300 f/4L that I rented might show serious
> backfocus problems on my 20D (it did) while working excellently on a
> different body. The 1D3 lets you calibrate each individual lens for
> use with it to avoid backfocus problems, thus getting the most out of
> each piece of glass.


Ya. That's the plan. A great feature that, frankly, will likely save Canon
a world of headaches...from pros who send their gear for focus calibration.
Instead, it's a do-it-yourself deal. Better for everyone involved, and
pretty smart.

> Now the bad news, PW. The one problem you will now face as a proud
> new 1D3 + 500 f/4L owner is that you are now all out of excuses.
> We will expect nothing less than excellence from all your future work.
> Certainly lots better than most of that crap you've been used to
> posting.
> heck, you might even want to revisit Yosemite and Haleakula just to
> retake some of those shots with the improved gear.


Heh heh heh... I dare you to post your Haleakala next to my "crappy" one.
It's the sunSET, doncha-know... -Forget all that local blather about
sunRISES...
Colors come with sunlight...not shadow, doncha-know...

-But the 1D3 ain't for Haleakala and Half-Dome.
The 1D3 is for Alaska and critters.
What I DON'T have, and deeply envy YOU for is the incredible abundance of
colorful critters you have all around you down south. I looked around today
while at work, and just about every living thing I saw was...light
brown...dark brown...with the occasion combination of light AND dark brown
(ooo-boy!)... Oh...and a bit of black and white...maybe a bit of grey. No
yellows...no reds...no greens or blues...just the color of poo. Heck, even
the bugs around here are just brown. So... The hate is mutual.

> God, I hate your ass!


Ya, but why should today be different?

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2007
On May 29, 11:35 pm, "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
here)@cox..net> wrote:
> What I DON'T have, and deeply envy YOU for is the incredible abundance of
> colorful critters you have all around you down south. I looked around today
> while at work, and just about every living thing I saw was...light
> brown...dark brown...with the occasion combination of light AND dark brown
> (ooo-boy!)...


Well that's what ya get for living in that shitty state.
It is kind of nice here. I can get in my car at work, hop up on the
freeway and be out in the country in 5 minutes or on top of the
mountain chasing eagles in 10.
Who Rules?



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ryadiia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2007

"X-Man" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 12:07:26 +1000, "Ryadiia"
> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>Lightroom is a mature product. rawtherapee is:
>>THe Experimental RAw Photo Editor

>
> And CHDK firmware is being released under the filenames of :
> "test1-pre12-.....", and yet it turns every camera it supports into a more
> capable camera than any DSLR that's ever been on the market.
>
> If you are going to judge software by its name then don't use ACDSee
> either or
> it might turn you into a bisexual!!
>
> What a ****in' fool.
>
> But then, that's how Adobe gets wealthy, "A fool is born every minute."
> And "A
> fool and his money are soon parted." Adobe makes sure to dig into the
> pockets
> of each and every one of you that is born.


-------------------
I just downloaded your pet raw converter and AFAICS it is a clunky, not very
workable program.
There is little or no ability to recover blown highlights. One of
Lightroom's "features". I can't find either, any WOW support for it. In fact
I can't find too many developers who offer any additions to it, much less
free ones like you can get for LR.

It's all well and good to support open source and experimental software but
really, when it comes to the crunch, it really can't compete with commercial
stuff. Adobe products didn't get to be as good as they are because every
Tom, Dick and Harry bent the source code until it worked the way some
propeller head wanted it to.

This is number 8 in the raw converters I've checked out. It might work OK
with average images but the real test of a RAW converter is when you have a
"must be saved at any cost" image. Rawtherapee fails the test on them. Maybe
when it matures it might be worth another look but that isn't today.

People who rely on software for a living and choose their applications after
careful consideration are not fools. OK so I own $3k worth of imaging
software. Hardly a splash in the bucket when you consider how much my camera
gear cost. If I can't rely on the software to pull the absolutely best image
from my files, it wouldn't matter if they paid me to use it, I still
couldn't afford it.

--
Douglas,
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.
http://www.bullyonline.org


 
Reply With Quote
 
BaumBadier
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2007
On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:52:18 -0700, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, BaumBadier
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Lightroom is only at v1.0 (still in Beta phase actually)

>
>actually, no - it has been final for several months, and version 1.1 is
>about to ship.


Merely pointing out the utter stupidity of some of these Adobe Fools that post
on the internet. Even at Lightroom v1.1, according to their reasoning, RAW
Therapee v2.1 still is the better software. No wonder they stay stuck in
Adobe-ville. They are too afraid to move out of the mud (adobe) because that's
all they know, were forced to know, or told to know. Heaven forbid that someone
should come along and show them some water and a towel to clean themselves up
and learn to walk upright. They'll just go on screaming bloody murder for their
right to continue flopping around in last century's mud.



 
Reply With Quote
 
X-Man
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2007
On Wed, 30 May 2007 13:55:28 +1000, "Ryadiia" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>There is little or no ability to recover blown highlights. One of
>Lightroom's "features". I can't find either, any WOW support for it. In fact
>I can't find too many developers who offer any additions to it, much less
>free ones like you can get for LR.


Aww look, another idiot that can't find what's built in.

Go back to what you know, better software is obviously too much for your small
mind to cope with.

 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2007
BaumBadier wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:52:18 -0700, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, BaumBadier
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Lightroom is only at v1.0 (still in Beta phase actually)

>>
>> actually, no - it has been final for several months, and version 1.1
>> is about to ship.

>
> Merely pointing out the utter stupidity of some of these Adobe Fools
> that post on the internet. Even at Lightroom v1.1, according to their
> reasoning, RAW Therapee v2.1 still is the better software. No wonder
> they stay stuck in Adobe-ville. They are too afraid to move out of
> the mud (adobe) because that's all they know, were forced to know, or
> told to know. Heaven forbid that someone should come along and show
> them some water and a towel to clean themselves up and learn to walk
> upright. They'll just go on screaming bloody murder for their right
> to continue flopping around in last century's mud.


Not true, chum. In fact...so many of "us" were using RawShooter...that
Adobe BOUGHT IT! And why did they do that? -Because of the very fact that
Adobe users want the best tool, and if Adobe doesn't offer, we look for
alternatives. Because of that fact, Adobe got even more serious about the
RAW aspect of the digital workflow, and worked Lightroom into a very similar
program in many aspects...with improvements of their own. As I see it, it's
an example of a company making a move that we all benefit from. Had it been
Microsoft...RawShooter would have just disappeared...but this was Adobe, and
they took a different approach. They actually incorporated ideas in a
powerful way. Heck, they even gave RawShooter users a free copy of
Lightroom.

Now fit that into your little "spin," chum.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2007
BaumBadier wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:52:18 -0700, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, BaumBadier
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Lightroom is only at v1.0 (still in Beta phase actually)

>> actually, no - it has been final for several months, and version 1.1 is
>> about to ship.

>
> Merely pointing out the utter stupidity of some of these Adobe Fools that post
> on the internet. Even at Lightroom v1.1, according to their reasoning, RAW
> Therapee v2.1 still is the better software. No wonder they stay stuck in
> Adobe-ville. They are too afraid to move out of the mud (adobe) because that's
> all they know, were forced to know, or told to know. Heaven forbid that someone
> should come along and show them some water and a towel to clean themselves up
> and learn to walk upright. They'll just go on screaming bloody murder for their
> right to continue flopping around in last century's mud.



How poetic.

Whyncha stfu, or post some images you've manipulated into magnificence
with this sorry ass software??

--
lsmft
 
Reply With Quote
 
William Graham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2007

"Annika1980" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
On May 29, 10:41 pm, "MarkČ" <mjmorgan(lowest even number
here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
> My Beta expired... Guess I didn't do the "trick" very well.


Mine finally crapped out the other night, amazingly right after I
received an e-mail from Adobe announcing that the Beta would no longer
function.

WRONG!

Sometimes the most obvious fixes are the best. Simply reset your
system clock to 2006 instead of 2007. Works like a charm now.
Plus, I'm a year younger!
I tried setting it back to 1975, but I kept getting constant
erections.

Try setting it to 1907.....


 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2007
John McWilliams wrote:
> MarkČ wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <IG37i.396423$(E-Mail Removed)>, MarkČ <
>>> here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My understanding was that Adobe bought them out in order to utilize
>>>> some of their tech in Lightroom without encroaching. I'm not
>>>> emotionally involved, so if that is shown to be wrong...great!
>>> they definitely incorporated rawshooter in lightroom and adobe camera
>>> raw. however, the lightroom project began long before that occured.
>>> that's all.

>>
>> The Lightroom we now enjoy is the way it is...to a significant
>> degree...because they incorporated technologies they aqcuired from
>> RawShooter Premium.
>>
>> Does that pass your legal verbage-checker?
>>
>>

> Define: significant!
>
> I believe they acquired it more for the top two guys who developed it as
> for the technology.
>
> Keep an eye out. Should be a good upgrade/bug fix soon.
>


As to question re Deke McClelland, he's "at" lynda.com. Very high grade
training, available on subscription basis. I got a month's freebie with
purchase of full CS3 suite..... for students. Way better than diddling
the clock.

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2007
Ryadiia wrote:
>For developing Canon images I firmly believe
> you can't go past Canon's own Digital Photo Professional. Each to their own.
>



That's clearly not true. The Canon raw processing in Adobe Photoshop is
clearly superior. In fact, just one feature of it ... the ability
to correct lateral chromatic aberration in the 12 bit domain ... makes it
superior. In addition, I just like the Adobe controls better.

Doug McDonald
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 4 12-21-2006 01:15 PM
findcontrol("PlaceHolderPrice") why why why why why why why why why why why Mr. SweatyFinger ASP .Net 2 12-02-2006 03:46 PM
Cisco 2611 and Cisco 1721 : Why , why , why ????? sam@nospam.org Cisco 10 05-01-2005 08:49 AM
Why, why, why??? =?Utf-8?B?VGltOjouLg==?= ASP .Net 6 01-27-2005 03:35 PM
Why Why Why You HAVE NO IDEA MCSE 31 04-24-2004 06:40 PM



Advertisments