Just as me, you might be disappointed by Adobe's decision to no longer support Lightroom (4/5/6) as standalone programs. As owner of several licenses of various versions of standalone Lightroom, I was looking for alternatives. After having tried several commercial products, I decided to run LR5 as long as I can.
While I am not sure about LR6, 4 and 5 should be OK for the farther future.
However, there is a problem! Over the course of time, electronic cameras (not to call them digital) tend to fail after a few years and require replacement. Someone lately told me that film photography is for the rich. I am not sure about that, for the amount one pays for a new digital camera, a lot of film can be bought! Anyway, that is not my topic for today.
Lightroom RAW support for newer cameras strongly depends on Adobe's updates. With older versions of Lightroom no longer supported, such version won't be able to handle RAW files of "replacement" cameras. Or do they?
It appears that Adobe does not want to totally disappoint former customers, i.e. licensees. For many years, Adobe provides a DNG converter for free. This converter is actually kept updated for the time being.
So, with the additional step of converting directories of RAW files into DNGs, newer cameras will be indirectly supported in older versions of Lightroom.
Fingers crossed that Adobe does not decide to scrap the DNG converter!
The only workable alternative I know of would be RawTherapee. While for certain effects, I actually prefer RawTherapee, this software does not really compare to the general capabilities of Lightroom.
In a way it is funny how dependent a RAW-shooter is on a particular piece of software and therefore from the policies of a particular supplier. And yes, I do know about PHASEONE's Capture One, however, this just adds another dependency from a supplier.
Showing posts with label Lightroom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lightroom. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Portable Dual Screen Setup
My latest twist on being mobile is neither novel, nor unexpected.
People who know me, know that I, years ago, bought an iPad mini. The proclaimed integration of iOS to OS-X "Mavericks" was the trigger. And guess what, I was totally disappointed! The iPad hence ended up being a YouTube watching device only.
Some months ago, I learned about the software Duet Display. Today, finally, I gave myself a push and purchased the iOS app.
Why could my post be any interesting to any photographer?
Lightroom can be set to show a live display on a second screen. Nothing new here either. That second screen could be an iPad, when using Duet Display.
And here comes the interesting bit. Assuming your main computer's screen is color calibrated and the iPad is not, the iPad could provide an impression how a photograph will look when viewed (online) with regular equipment, while the main screen will provide color of the image being printed.
My present dual screen setup is pretty portable: 11in MacBook Air + iPad mini. Probably the smallest available kit for the functionality.
People who know me, know that I, years ago, bought an iPad mini. The proclaimed integration of iOS to OS-X "Mavericks" was the trigger. And guess what, I was totally disappointed! The iPad hence ended up being a YouTube watching device only.
Some months ago, I learned about the software Duet Display. Today, finally, I gave myself a push and purchased the iOS app.
Why could my post be any interesting to any photographer?
Lightroom can be set to show a live display on a second screen. Nothing new here either. That second screen could be an iPad, when using Duet Display.
And here comes the interesting bit. Assuming your main computer's screen is color calibrated and the iPad is not, the iPad could provide an impression how a photograph will look when viewed (online) with regular equipment, while the main screen will provide color of the image being printed.
My present dual screen setup is pretty portable: 11in MacBook Air + iPad mini. Probably the smallest available kit for the functionality.
Friday, December 25, 2015
Cinematic Photography (night)
Cinematic Photography is an expression that I came across lately. Another name for the same genre seems to be "Hollywood Look".
There is a difference in tone rendering between photography and cinematography, no doubt. However, a certain flavour of street photography, in particular during night time, adopted the Hollywood cinematography look.
To my surprise, it is very effective, and very simple to do.
Before learning about the "Hollywood Look", I just enjoyed watching Hollywood movies once in a a while. Now that I am aware what the effective colour composition used for the Hollywood look is, I am surprised to find it all over the place, e.g. in commercials.
Now, what is so particular about that "look"?
The basic concept seems to be to create a background in complementary colours of the foreground. The foreground will therefore be dominant over the background.
Movies usually tell stories about humans. Those typically have an orange skin tone. So, in order to put an emphasis on the "subject", i.e. the actor, one would tone the actor in the scene in an orange like hue. To make the actor pop, the background would now be toned in the complementary colour, i.e. turquoise.
With that knowledge, watch a Hollywood movie! You will notice, there is a strong preference to orange tones, accompanied by blueish and/or greenish backgrounds.
The Hollywood Look follows a really basic compositional principle that warm colours attract, while cold colours repel (fore- and background).
Let's have a look on a simple photography
The very same photography, with a Hollywood look applied
So, what did I do to achieve this look?
First of all, this applies to nighttime images. Nothing I will tell you here will look good in daytime pics!
To achieve the look, I used 3 steps, which only concerned colour temperature.
There is a difference in tone rendering between photography and cinematography, no doubt. However, a certain flavour of street photography, in particular during night time, adopted the Hollywood cinematography look.
To my surprise, it is very effective, and very simple to do.
Before learning about the "Hollywood Look", I just enjoyed watching Hollywood movies once in a a while. Now that I am aware what the effective colour composition used for the Hollywood look is, I am surprised to find it all over the place, e.g. in commercials.
Now, what is so particular about that "look"?
The basic concept seems to be to create a background in complementary colours of the foreground. The foreground will therefore be dominant over the background.
Movies usually tell stories about humans. Those typically have an orange skin tone. So, in order to put an emphasis on the "subject", i.e. the actor, one would tone the actor in the scene in an orange like hue. To make the actor pop, the background would now be toned in the complementary colour, i.e. turquoise.
With that knowledge, watch a Hollywood movie! You will notice, there is a strong preference to orange tones, accompanied by blueish and/or greenish backgrounds.
The Hollywood Look follows a really basic compositional principle that warm colours attract, while cold colours repel (fore- and background).
Let's have a look on a simple photography
 |
| Nathan Phillips Square, Toronto |
The very same photography, with a Hollywood look applied
 |
| Cinematic look |
So, what did I do to achieve this look?
First of all, this applies to nighttime images. Nothing I will tell you here will look good in daytime pics!
To achieve the look, I used 3 steps, which only concerned colour temperature.
- Graduated filter from the top, decreased colour temperature (getting some blue)
- Graduated filter from the bottom, adjusted tint to green
- Broad radial filter, warm up colour temperature
The above filters can be stored as presets.
I advice to store the radial filter within the above mentioned presets.
Now, having applied a preset, the radial (orange) filter can be used as a spotlight, to determine the area to be highlighted.
Concluding, it seems that a rather blue upper portion, a greenish lower portion and a foreground mid-portion having orange tint, define the look of movies.
Very often, the blue is ignored and replaced by turquoise produced by the original process.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
How to get Lightroom 5 for cheap
Followers of my blog already know that I got lucky once and won a Samsung NX300 camera, which came with Lightroom 4.
Higher end Samsung cameras seem to come with Lightroom included. Presently, it seems some retailers try to clean out the stock of NX minis. The NX mini actually comes with a Lightroom 5 license.
The NX mini is a really nice camera anyway, in particular with the 9mm prime lens.
The zoom lens seems good too, however, it makes the camera less pocket-able.
The 17mm f/1.8 portrait lens looks very interesting too. Although, 17mm, equivalent to 45mm on 135 film, does not seem to be portrait lens, but rather a "standard", for a pretty steep price.
Anyway, presently, one can obtain a very small camera, that can shoot RAW, with a Lightroom 5 licence, for a pretty low price.
Higher end Samsung cameras seem to come with Lightroom included. Presently, it seems some retailers try to clean out the stock of NX minis. The NX mini actually comes with a Lightroom 5 license.
The NX mini is a really nice camera anyway, in particular with the 9mm prime lens.
The zoom lens seems good too, however, it makes the camera less pocket-able.
The 17mm f/1.8 portrait lens looks very interesting too. Although, 17mm, equivalent to 45mm on 135 film, does not seem to be portrait lens, but rather a "standard", for a pretty steep price.
Anyway, presently, one can obtain a very small camera, that can shoot RAW, with a Lightroom 5 licence, for a pretty low price.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)