This content has been marked as final.
Show 15 replies
-
1. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
(John_Verne) Feb 22, 2007 11:03 AM (in response to KateMann)I concur. I've gone back over some of my early photos and recovered some nice gems. Sure, I could have done this with Photoshop, but I was never able to figure out how to tweak PS layers to really recover this information.
Given how little dynamic range most digital cameras have to work with, Lr has really given me a tool to get to the next level: instead of "amateur" I'll be "amateur with grandiose illusions."
My next challenge is figuring out how to recover blown-out blacks, especially when you don't have a lot of room to go in the other direction (i.e., toward over-exposure). -
2. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
KateMann Feb 22, 2007 11:13 AM (in response to KateMann)John, you might try this: adjust the photo to taste in Lr, leap into Ps, click the history brush and set the brush mode to "screen", try 10% and then paint the deepest shadows carefully. start with the lightest parts and experiment.
If you like this method, play around with the other modes and run out and buy a wacom tablet .. don't forget to eat and sleep. -
3. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
A.Dias Feb 22, 2007 11:26 AM (in response to KateMann)"... click the history brush and set the brush mode to "screen", try 10% and then paint the deepest shadows ..."
This is why Lr was developed... photographers are not painters with brushes. :) -
4. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
KateMann Feb 22, 2007 11:32 AM (in response to KateMann)Antonio, I beg to differ. I don't plan to be limited to the toolset you find in Lr, delightful as it is.
Digital photography has set me free from the darkroom. Don't lock me in the lightroom instead. -
5. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
don solomon Feb 22, 2007 12:06 PM (in response to KateMann)Great response katherine!
Exactly my feeling about 'single application zealots' who want to lock others in their specified little 'rooms' based on their narrow understandings of the breadth and depth of Photography!.
The best tools for the job requirements. Period. -
-
7. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
Geoff the kiwi Feb 22, 2007 4:29 PM (in response to KateMann)Hopefully we all are getting our minds prised open a little -
8. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
(Brian_Witter) Feb 23, 2007 12:11 AM (in response to KateMann)I'm a painter with camera's:) -
9. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
(andrew_joseph) Feb 23, 2007 12:34 AM (in response to KateMann)It's all about individual preferences. The images I want to make are what I can get from the camera.
What [b]I[/b] don't want to do is start manipilating the image too much, by changing out the sky for example. For some people doing this will give them what they want, a spectacular image. I think that when this happens, the 'artist' should state they have heavily manipulated and combined images.
LR currently gives me what I want, i can play with the colours but still keep it 'original'. -
10. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
KateMann Feb 23, 2007 6:07 AM (in response to KateMann)Andrew, I do understand your point. My point was that using the history brush in Ps was a great way to retrieve shadow detail in the lower zones. I have spent many hours in darkrooms manipulating values on paper by dodging and burning, with more of less success. All photographers do it, have done it. What a clumsy way to achieve mixed results!
The debate regarding what constitutes "real" photography is not of much interest to me. Cameras lie. Straight prints from original negatives are no more a reflection of reality than my "painted" work.
Lightroom has a very sophisticated set of development tools, but every fine art photographer acknowledges that, at least at this iteration of the program, the final touches might be best administered in Ps. -
11. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
don solomon Feb 23, 2007 6:32 AM (in response to KateMann)Katherine,
Been there, done that! For more decades than I care to remember! Clumsy is the understatement of the year for darkroom dodging and burning.
Lightroom is certainly feature limited overall( but 'Develop' is built on paradigm full of potential for further liberation) by any comparative measure against a number of the already mature apps we have to choose from, but relative to darkroom labor it is, of course, photographic emancipation of the first order. -
12. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
KateMann Feb 23, 2007 7:17 AM (in response to KateMann)don, yes, and that is why I am celebrating! I have reluctantly said goodbye to RawShooter and welcomed Lr as my basic photography application. Starting in Lr, and going to Ps when necessary (and it isn't always necessary) I am delighted.
I actually am content with the limitations, if you can call them that, of Lr - it isn't meant to be Ps and it doesn't have to be. I would bet that 99% of people who are looking for the one application that will satisfy their needs need look no farther than Lr. Ps is a big challenge for most photographers who need a sophisticated application but don't wish to spend 10 years learning how best to use it. Lr is incredibly powerful and easily accessible. I am delighted with so many aspects of the program I would bore you to tears if I even started listing them.
Surely there are a few awkward bits, but I expect that the next iteration of the program will be even more spectacular. I don't expect less from Adobe. -
-
14. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
(andrew_joseph) Feb 23, 2007 9:57 AM (in response to KateMann)"The debate regarding what constitutes "real" photography is not of much interest to me. Cameras lie. Straight prints from original negatives are no more a reflection of reality than my "painted" work. "
I didn't mean to start discussing 'real' vs 'manipulated'. I've never done any real developing (with chemicals and negative and stuff), but I have played with photoshop like programs for years.
I was just stating that I use LR because it's not Photoshop, or GIMP, or Seashore etc. I think if people come to LR expecting PS functionality they are going to be very dissapointed, it's a different type of program. -
15. Re: Recovery! YES!!!
KateMann Feb 23, 2007 10:13 AM (in response to KateMann)And I agree with you Andrew, except for the "painting" suggestion.
Ps is not for everyone - it is serious overkill for most. But it isn't overkill for me...
here's a recent photo that would have been not nearly so nice (oh well, I like it) if it had not been for the history brush.
http://www.jensenmusic.ca/kate/cn_tower.jpg
I needed to open up the shadow areas in the bottom of the photo and in a very specific way. I used PK creative sharpener for the bottom as well, letting the distance remain out of focus.
I started in Lr to develop the RAW. I could not have realized the finished work in Lr alone, or indeed, without Pixelgenius plug-ins.




