That is quite a cool comparison. The combo of the two sure makes one amazing tool. LR5 is my go-to cataloging and editing application. I am in the process of reviewing DxO, but you can't go wrong with LR.
Nice one. Shows what Lightroom 5 can achieve. I undertook a thorough comparison between DxO and Lightroom 5 only because I had been a Lightroom user since launch and wanted to see if I was missing something. I wasn't missing anything and as good as DxO is, it does not out do Lightroom in my view. Also, to get full functionality for the D800 the Elite version will have to be purchased. If you are using the trial DxO then this is the Elite version, but to purchase it is 50% more expensive than Lightroom 5 even with the discount offer.
As an aside, capturing silhouetted birds is always difficult to achieve. You may like to try using your flash gun. I took some pictures of Waxwings last year with a 300mm f4 + SB-800 and the results were very pleasing. Just a few thoughts.
<<LR is not the go to software program for photographers. PS is a graphic artist based program>>.
I couldn't agree less! Lightroom is a dedicated photography workload software and PS is but one part of the CS suite and deals with photography and yes graphics areas. Which may just be why LR and PS are the most popular software programs for photographers.
Fri 06-Dec-13 06:37 AM | edited Fri 06-Dec-13 06:39 AM by Pythagoras345
I have PS CC, CS6, LR5 and DXO8 installed. Since my license for PS CC I hardly ever use LR5 or DXO. All features of LR5 are based upon ACR. My workflow is very simple, load images with Bridge, edit selected images in ACR, some further editing in PS, save as .psd. I use LR5 for printing and publishing, so I have to import the "to be printed" files which I convert to TIFF, in LR5. Even my old 6mp D70s images look fantastic on an A3+ print on Ilford GFS. For me this is the standard workflow. DXO becomes superfluous. Maarten
>I have PS CC, CS6, LR5 and DXO8 installed. Since my license >for PS CC I hardly ever use LR5 or DXO. All features of LR5 >are based upon ACR. My workflow is very simple, load images >with Bridge, edit selected images in ACR, some further editing >in PS, save as .psd. I use LR5 for printing and publishing, so >I have to import the "to be printed" files which I >convert to TIFF, in LR5. Even my old 6mp D70s images look >fantastic on an A3+ print on Ilford GFS. For me this is the >standard workflow. DXO becomes superfluous. >Maarten
Brand new CC user here, what value does PSD format provide? - TIA,
PSD files are exclusive to Adobe, an acronym for "Photoshop Document file". It's similar to a RAW file in so much it's "almost" non destructive. When one adds for example, text or image alterations, it creates layers, or you can create them too and can then be either saved as a TIFF, Jpeg or PSD. With TIFF and Jpeg the layers are flattened. The layers in a PSD file can be copied to other image files to. Because the layers contain the added manipulation the original image is left virtually untouched.
It's an incredibly powerful tool and the reserve of graphic artists and photographers alike.
I use LR5 with 14 bit lossless compressed NEFs. LR5 is simply fantastic for an old retired guy like me who's been taking pictures (with Nikon cameras) since 1966. Now using a D300s. Mrs. Santa Claus is bringing me a new D800 for Christmas. Given my experience with the D300s and a couple of thousand images PPd in LR4 and now LR5, I do believe there's soon to be a wedding between the new D800 and LR5. Outstanding genetic material for the image children to follow, I daresay!
I think its time to split forums into two headings Photography & Digital Manipulation. To compare PS with the old darkroom is ridiculous. Some amateurs from those days, myself included try to get the shot right in camera and tune the basics in LR or NX2 etc with the idea that photography is a record of what was there and not what wasn't. Digital Manipulation is quite the opposite. I don't knock PS but surely its there,in the most part for pros who want to sell or win at all costs with trickery which is fine but don't pass that off as a photograph,its another art form like digital painting. Of course we can all use it as a hobby but photography its not.
>Some amateurs from those days, myself included try to get the >shot right in camera and tune the basics in LR or NX2 etc with >the idea that photography is a record of what was there and >not what wasn't. Digital Manipulation is quite the opposite.
Deliberate trickery is one thing (for those who want to go that way, it is rather easier now than it was), but photographers - including some very famous pro's - have always relied on post-processing to achieve the results they seek. Techniques like push-processing of film stock, cropping, dodging and burning at the enlargement stage, physical re-touching of a print and so forth have all been practised since they became physically possible.
There are kinds of photography, such as photojournalism, press and PR, where the shot has to be right in camera, otherwise it is not a legitimate image.
There are other approaches where the conception of the image is done in the mind of the photographer and then realised through a process of setting up, lighting, capture, RAW conversion and image editing.
If you believe that post-processing is only there to correct "mistakes", alter reality, increase sales or cheat the viewer and competition judge, then I fear you are missing out on what has always been a large part of photography, and are doing a huge number of keen photographers a great disservice.
>If you believe that post-processing is only there to correct >"mistakes", alter reality, increase sales or cheat >the viewer and competition judge, then I fear you are missing >out on what has always been a large part of photography, and >are doing a huge number of keen photographers a great >disservice. > >We should probably agree to differ.
I process 90% of my pictures in DxO Optics Pro version 9 and am very satisfied with the default processing. Other than cropping and perhaps adjusting exposure I rarely apply any changes to photos. I own Apple Aperture, Adobe LR and PS and DxO and use DxO most of the times.
You can't really "get it right in the camera," David, unless you're talking about framing and exposure. Yes, both of those should be taken care of in camera. In most cases, post-exposure cropping and other manipulations intended to create a picture different from the one you saw not only are visible to those with eyes to see, but are silly. But the camera system loses some sharpness, and in many cases the camera can't quite handle the dynamic range of the picture, or the color balance of the scene. At a bare minimum, minimal sharpening and, one would hope, minimal movement of white and black sliders are essential to recover what you saw. Often a small color balance adjustment is necessary, which is an argument for always shooting raw. In this sense, you never can "get it right in the camera."
But I have to laugh when somebody says that now, with Photoshop, you can fake your pictures, the implication being that this wasn't possible before Photoshop. I'm not sure how these people explain how Trotsky disappeared from early pictures of the Bolsheviks. There's almost nothing you can do in Photoshop that you couldn't do in a darkroom. The difference is that what used to take days now takes minutes.
Tue 03-Dec-13 12:03 AM | edited Tue 03-Dec-13 01:35 AM by KerryS
>Some amateurs from those days, myself included try to get the >shot right in camera and tune the basics in LR or NX2 etc with >the idea that photography is a record of what was there and >not what wasn't.
This is what is known as documentary photography. I don't do documentary photography. I do fine art photography and as such have no such constraints to record "what was there". I only have to be true to my vision of the piece I am attempting to create through the use of photography and the digital dark room. If this means manipulation of the color palette or altering the exposure levels or removing certain unwanted items from the composition or any other use of digital dark room tools to achieve my vision then it is my prerogative to do so. I do believe that I must convey this artistic process to my viewers and customers. After that I have fulfilled any obligation I may have to them and it is up to them to decide if they agree with my work or not. They can disagree by not purchasing my work. It is that simple.
I think the absolute idea of "getting it right in camera" is realized in the idea of point-and-shoot photography. Add a nameless lab to process an image to a thick piece of paper and it starts to resemble family photography of sixties (when I was a child) -- with standard post processing for masses and generally untrue colors.
I agree with others that there is no such thing as "true, purist photography" without any post processing by somebody. Copying an image from film to a paper is also post processing! Anyone who has tried to achieve correct colors with a printer knows that it requires a lot of things to set right. Again, this is post processing.
The subjective nature of the human eye/brain system makes it practically impossible for any camera to process it right in all conditions. A picture taken at home in incandescent light looks overly yellow while your brain says the room looked just "warm and cozy". Cameras just don't know the circumstances at the place where the image was taken. THIS is human's responsibility (i.e. post processing).
LR 5 is a wonderful cataloging system and is capable of doing some great stuff, especially with a large array of photographs to be processed quickly, especially if you have the Nik plugins associated with it. But the "develop" module in LR essentially is ACR. ACR is capable of some amazing work, but for final work, nothing can beat Photoshop,and especially Photoshop CC. CC's subscription price is a bargain.
The distinction being suggested dividing software tools into separate categories does not reflect reality. All photography is graphic art even if the practitioner thinks it is a pure capture process. It is not, every step of the way, the data collected and manipulated by the camera, user setting controls, processor, dark room processes, printer, display media etc.....all take data and adjust it to alter the reaction by the viewer. There is nothing in a camera that is capturing reality, it is not magic, but it is mimicking our own brains in how we create images in our consciousness that we say is reality, by definition, not by fact. Viewing a multi-dimensional object or scene and collecting some light intensity values, and wavelength values representing only 2 dimensions is a thoroughly interpretive activity....the very essence of art. We even train our brains to view a 2-d graphical representation to think of it as representing an actual many dimensional place and time. Babies are not trained in that yet so think nothing of a photo.
I used to do B&W developing and everything I did, intentionally or not, impacted the result more than operating the camera itself. Most people sent their film in to developers who used computers, analog computers at first, and the results were mostly to decrease the lousiness of the original data collection by making color, and intensity adjustments that most customers never realized were done or needed.
All the software does the same, allows a user to make adjustments to a collection of data to represent what the user wants the viewer to see. That includes the camera de-mosaicing process, rendering engine, compression algorithm, color temperature compensation and a dozen other software based adjustments done on even "pure" photojournalism" style photos, often without any input from the photographer.
An apt analogy is hi-fi. Many purist insist that they strive to recreate the event in highly realistic representations but that is just like photography where the mere act of capturing sound waves means it is an interpretive process that any 4 year old could instantly tell that the most carefully tuned and optimized sound reproduction setup is not real musicians playing. Just like in photography, many hobbyists learn to accept their 2-d artistic representations as real "captures". That is a learned process and a person or animal not conditioned for it, does not share the photographer/audiophile illusion. Art is an illusion, whether sound or image.
With respect to what is not acceptable in photography from a manipulation point of view, then in my opinion quite simply I feel there is very, very little.
In our very active photo society we have two members for whom analog photography can never die and submit very few images now. Then there are those who occasionally still use film and digital, I am one of them. Then we have the majority and they are exclusively digital of course. What we all have in common is that in one way or another every member that submits images manipulates them whether via a simple crop, straightening horizons and brightness and contrast. This has always been possible in both the wet and dry darkroom and I this has been happening since Louis Daguerre.
I judge competitions at other clubs and never ever criticise any image that has been treated to what one may say is over manipulation, I see this as subjective to the author. I do however draw the line where an image never existed (full composite), unless that was the intention of the competition. It may not be to my taste, but I always try to see beyond that. If it's an "Open" competition, then virtually anything goes and a selected genre can be manipulated outside what a purist may think is correct. As an example outside Photoshop manipulation, is a slow moving water image which is manipulated in camera. Is that thought of being unacceptable, of course it isn't. However, I am very likely to critique the quality of printing, colour and saturation and even the standard of mounting the image. I also give my opinion of how an image to my eye could be improved, composition, exposure etc.
Photoshop is very much the darkroom of today, of course there is so much more that can be achieved. Personally, I think it's all credit to the digital darkroom that makes photography such an enduring interest for folks at all levels. I marvel at what can be achieved and yes, I am developing film again and will be printing too. The only difference in my mind between the two is time
LR5 is capable of some really good results. I use it for quick edits. But when I want to get the most out of my RAW images I use ACR and PS. There are so many tools out there and much like photography, it's all in the eye of the beholder. More than one way to slay the beast.
As far as post processing, again all in the eye of the beholder. I shoot RAW like many do and post processing is part of our process to create the final image. Some intend to over cook images, others stay true to the image captured but boost color, contrast and saturation. I find this all perfectly acceptable. It all depends on what the person behind the camera wanted to convey in their picture to you the viewer.
Different strokes for different folks, so to speak.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.” ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson
What lens did you use? I guess that you used a zoom lens. The D800(E) offers additional detail, sharpness and clarity if you use a high quality prime lens. Properly used, Lightroom, Elements, PS or PS CC make very little difference when it comes to image quality.
If you think that your "D800 works just fine with any of your zoom lenses - and your primes" we simply have different standards for image quality.
I was saying that it does not make a big difference whether you use Lightroom, Elements, PS or PS CC. Properly used they are all equally capable as long as you are not intent on manipulating the original image.
>If you think that your "D800 works just fine with any of >your zoom lenses - and your primes" we simply have >different standards for image quality.
Perhaps - but my customers are quite happy with the results! Continually implying that the D800 can only be used with the "best" primes is unhelpful and misleading, as has been pointed out to you before.
>I was saying that it does not make a big difference whether >you use Lightroom, Elements, PS or PS CC. Properly used they >are all equally capable as long as you are not intent on >manipulating the original image.
I see what you mean - thank you for clarifying that
I do not doubt that your customers are quite happy. Since you are a skilled photographer this probably has very little to do with whether you are using a 5DIII, a D600 or a D800(E).
If you want to learn a little more about image quality, a good place to start is offered by Carl Zeiss:
"The weakest link. Achieving top-quality shots with high-resolution cameras means keeping all the parameters that have a direct or indirect impact on image quality within strict boundaries. The idea that “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link” has particular relevance for photography and image reproduction."
>"The weakest link. >Achieving top-quality shots with high-resolution cameras means >keeping all the parameters that have a direct or indirect >impact on image quality within strict boundaries. The idea >that “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link” has >particular relevance for photography and image >reproduction."
So, the "chain" of D800 with any given lens will generally be stronger than (say) a D700 with the same lens. That's all I'm trying to say, as can be seen in the other current thread.
The best lenses will always produces stronger results, and that's not limited to the D800
Sat 21-Dec-13 07:58 PM | edited Sat 21-Dec-13 08:01 PM by rhulbert
This is a great article. With regard to Precision Focusing, some would argue that the interaction between lens and sensor means that actually only one point in the visual field can obtain truly accurate focus. However, I appreciate that a great lens can make the difference in focus visually negligible throughout the “focus plane.” For fast lenses, there are those that believe it is more important to pay attention to how the lens renders the "out of focus" areas.
PS. I meant to place this post after your recommended link to the Zeiss Article.
All the editing programs listed so far including PSCC, LR5, Capture 1, DxO Optics Pro 9, and let’s add Perfect Suite 8 and Aperture among others can produce excellent photos. Like camera models, each software program has it’s advantages for the discerning photographer.
"Reality" is an illusion.
Our brains are incredible editing devices that interpret the information coming from our eyes … including information that is based on our own personal individual life histories. This means that we all see differently! Our brain sees still images and “stitches” them together to give us the illusion that we are seeing movement…very similar in a way to a combination of photoshop and cinematography. We have a “blind spot” in the back of our eyes where the optic nerve connects to our brain, but the human brain uses a form of “content aware” to give us the mental illusion that there is no gap in our vision. We can only see what photographers would call “sharpness” in a 2 degree horizontal angle of view without our eyes moving to capture another still image.
The art and science of photography begins with “Pre-visualizing” your image followed by the actual recording. You can stop there if you wish and trust the algorithms created by an engineer retained by the Camera Manufacturer to process the image in camera, or you can proceed to “Re-Visualize” (or post process) your image using the wide variety of software available today.
The most difficult of all things to do is to try to document reality. We all see light (colour) differently, and that is only the beginning of the challenge.
My suggestion is to not worry about documenting reality. Instead, make your images in a way that is personally satisfying and fulfilling. Choosing the editing software you personally like is part of that wonderful experience of image making.
My D800e with Lightroom5(95%), PSCC(4%), PhotomatixPro(0.5%), Topaz(0.3%) and misc. software totaling (0.2%)have me where I want to be.
Rick's description of human brains is how I understand the science and the artistry of photography.
I am satisfied and happy. But I know I don't know everything and never will. Einstein only thought he knew stuff up to 1955. Sixty years later we now know much more than he knew. Time, length and focus are not constants. Only the speed of light does not vary. He called relativity "Invariance." I call it photography. --- Peace.
Aperture is what I use for my cataloging system, and do my edits using the following (in this order).
Iridient Developer PS6 CC Nik software suite
I am in the process of evaluating LR5,DXO and Capture One..They all seem to be ok. I don;t know if I am just used to Aperture or what, but its interface just seems to be much more user friendly when it comes to cataloging items. Plus photoshop seems to be a much more powerful photo editing tool than any of the others...
One of the strongest attributes that Aperture seems to have is the ease with which you can create and work from multiple libraries. I don't know that any of these other programs allow you do that do they??