tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post3796541764009512863..comments2024-01-18T05:34:40.549-07:00Comments on Behind The Lens: Working On ImagesGeorge Barrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06745541057122821349noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post-9322681764438785732007-04-03T17:32:00.000-06:002007-04-03T17:32:00.000-06:00Thanks for that George. I've only just started us...Thanks for that George. I've only just started using Lightzone (previously tried Nikon Capture, Bibble, Camera Raw and of course CS2). I found it great for processing the images made on a six week backpack through India, which really shows off the intuitive workflow, and I admit most of the shots were not what I would call fineart, and warranted only simple global adjustments. I went out on Saturday night (a couple of nights before the full moon), for my first attempt at night/moonlight photography and have been spending a lot of time with a single image. I can see myself working on it for quite a while, lots of nasty point light sources to deal with, and experimenting with using regions to darken areas and draw attention into others (been spending lots of time at michaelkenna.net for inspiration). I think Lightzone should cover me for just about anything I can think of needing to do. But to be honest, I probably know how to take advantage of only 10% of CS2's capabilities, where as I find Lightzone is all there in front of me laid out so elegantly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post-48966012022143581562007-04-03T00:09:00.000-06:002007-04-03T00:09:00.000-06:00Sam has a good question: the short answer is proba...Sam has a good question: the short answer is probably nothing. In practice, the 'brush strokes' that I apply to the mask in various densities and repititions amounts to hundreds or even thousands of individual strokes. Even though I suspect that lightroom would probably let me save on many of those, if I had to select 200 different areas in Lightzone, it would drive me crazy. So it isn't which is the better, tool, it's which tool best suits me. I like the fine and incremental control of gradually painting in the changes I need. Lightroom seems to work well for a number of good photographers. I can only recommend you try both and see which produces better results for you and which seems more intuitive. It's quite possible that had I had the option of both from day one, I might be doing things differently, but I suspect not. For me, Lightzone is about doing things easier, when all I want to do is do them better. Were I a commercial photographer working on dozens of images a day, easier might just mean getting the assignment out on time, but as a fine art photographer, if I have a good image, I have all the time in the world to work on it.George Barrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06745541057122821349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post-53718432410756174292007-04-02T23:50:00.000-06:002007-04-02T23:50:00.000-06:00George, what does Photoshop allow you to do that L...George, what does Photoshop allow you to do that Lightzone doesn't?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post-41806923828240670002007-04-01T16:55:00.000-06:002007-04-01T16:55:00.000-06:00Totally agree with you on this one, George. Locali...Totally agree with you on this one, George. Localized contrast (and color) control is an important step in interpreting an image, especially in black and white where tonal range is everything.<BR/><BR/>Great explanation.Chuck Kimmerlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07834064288238436284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post-70456090383090024512007-03-31T10:08:00.000-06:002007-03-31T10:08:00.000-06:00I'm not sure i've ever gone as far as that, but I ...I'm not sure i've ever gone as far as that, but I certainly do quite a lot of local adjustment. On my best work (big prints for the wall) I also track several versions.<BR/><BR/>This is one reason why I switched to Lightzone - lots of powerful tools, far easier to do (& modify) local adjustments than PS (IMO) and small save files.<BR/><BR/>When I feel one is ready for a print, I just create the print file from the relevant edit files, which can easily be deleted. Storage requirements have also gone right down as a result.doonsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04558926453149764893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27557058.post-64950547260022777952007-03-30T16:08:00.000-06:002007-03-30T16:08:00.000-06:00The top image jumped out at me immediately, and I ...The top image jumped out at me immediately, and I couldn't have told you much of what was different apart from the shadows being richer. But that doesn't mean you can't appreciate that a lot of work has gone into it. I'd love to see it in print.<BR/><BR/>I've found recently that a lot of my peers have abandoned photoshop in favour of lightroom because they see photoshop as overkill, and prefer to stick with the global changes that lightroom allows. But 90% of my photoshop work involves layers and masks so I feel crippled without it. Does that mean I produce weaker images out of the camera? Possibly. But I'm in this for the joy of doing as much as the end result - if not more, considering the lack of prints hanging on my wall! <BR/><BR/>I hope you continue to enjoy working on your images, and the rest of us can enjoy the results...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com