|
Whitezombi posted:Main reason I used Lightroom. I started a new one with my new camera-- Clipped it down to about 1000, might purge some more that are flagged as rejected soon. LR3 is still kind of slow for me, but honestly, it's not that bad after upping the cache to 50gigs (up from the default of ... 1?) and changing my GPU to care more about performance than rendering.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
moron posted:What's everyone's thoughts on Aperture 3? Given a choice between Aperture and Lightroom, is Lightroom the one to go with? I use aperture and have since 2.0. I really like everything they did in 3.0, it's faster and much more polished than 2.0 (which was getting really long in the tooth). I just do not care about manually managing my folder structure -- vaults & exported projects function perfectly fine for organizing and backing things up. I properly tag, categorize, and flag everything, plus Location & Faces add another layer of "automatic" filtering. If I want to find a photo I search in aperture, not look through directories for DSC_10560.nef 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2010 23:06
|
|
|
quazi posted:A little over 24,000 and it goes up by about 2200/year. SO how does Lightroom run for you? I have around 14,000 images and thought that may be my problem. Well - except for the fact that LR2 ran perfectly until I installed LR3...
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:SO how does Lightroom run for you? I have around 14,000 images and thought that may be my problem. Well - except for the fact that LR2 ran perfectly until I installed LR3... Not the person you asked, but I have ~26k in my catalog and it runs fine. Like I said, it takes about 2 seconds to load the filmstrip in a folder full of 21MP RAW files, less for a folder full of lower-res files or JPEGs. multigl posted:.nef What's the consensus on converting to DNG? I do it, because LR can do so on import and I like the idea of an open standard for my photos. I don't realistically think that CR2 files will ever be un-openable, but who knows what will happen in 20 or 30 or 50 years, when I have kids and grandkids and want to show them my ancient non-fractally-encoded non-holographic pictures? Having the whole format fully documented just makes sense, and I haven't noticed a difference in speed or file size between DNG and CRW/CR2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2010 23:43
|
|
|
I have over 27,000 files in LR3. It runs a bit slow, but not any slower than when I first installed it and only had say 50 files. There has to be some kind of optimization that could be done, LR2 was faster on this machine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
There's an "optimize catalog" option in the LR preferences dialog. Not sure if it's still in LR3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
brad industry posted:There's an "optimize catalog" option in the LR preferences dialog. Not sure if it's still in LR3. It is: File>>Optimize Catalog For my small catalog I didn't notice any difference in performance. You 20k+ juggernauts might, though. e: For clarity, apparently I'm illiterate or some poo poo. Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jun 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
I'll be damned. I just ran that and it's faster now, thanks guys!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2010 03:48
|
|
|
I tried that already. Did jack for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2010 03:51
|
|
|
moron posted:What's everyone's thoughts on Aperture 3? Given a choice between Aperture and Lightroom, is Lightroom the one to go with? I am still using LR2 but the main reason I like it is its integration with Photoshop. You can edit an image in PS directly from LR and when you save it, the changes will also be applied to the LR image. I originally had all of my images in one catalog in LR but it really started to slow down. Right now I have a catalog for every month/year. That really sped things up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2010 05:47
|
|
|
I didn't notice a slowdown in the first place, but an "optimized" database can't be a bad thing, right?  The only thing that slows me down is trying to edit an image with 15 overlapping adjustment brushes where half of use auto masking. It results in an xmp file that's about 1.5MB (normally around 30k), and it's dog slow no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2010 05:52
|
|
|
Ever since I started using lots of adjustment brushes LR has been slow as gently caress, which is unfortunate because I prefer to do dodging/burning in the RAW conversion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2010 18:33
|
|
|
One way to speed up LR is to use a light-weight editing program on the front end, such as Photo Mechanic. Culling pre-LR sped it up a great deal for me (this was only LR 2, so it could have changed...)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Ever since I started using lots of adjustment brushes LR has been slow as gently caress, which is unfortunate because I prefer to do dodging/burning in the RAW conversion. This times 10
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2010 22:03
|
|
|
I hope they patch this crap soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Ever since I started using lots of adjustment brushes LR has been slow as gently caress, which is unfortunate because I prefer to do dodging/burning in the RAW conversion. I make sure my new brushes are all zeroed out, paint with O toggled so it gives me red overlay, and hit all the areas first. It's lighting fast when you aren't actually changing the pixels. Then I go in and change the settings of that brush, which is also very fast. It's only when painting with a brush that is actively changing exposure or saturation, etc that it gets slow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2010 22:34
|
|
|
That's a good tip. My problem is I am anal and once you get over 3 or so brushes on an image that whole loving program turns into beach ball land.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
brad industry posted:That's a good tip. My problem is I am anal and once you get over 3 or so brushes on an image that whole loving program turns into beach ball land. Yep, I try to place the initial brush stroke in an area that will help me identify it later, so an iris brush goes over the iris first. Face brush goes on the forehead first, sky in the sky, etc. That way they are at least on top of the right area to help clue in the work. But how many are we talking here? I don't think I've ever had more than 3 before I feel like photoshop would be quicker and easier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 11:45
|
|
|
I don't go as in depth with my brushes as you two, but I barely touch them in lightroom, there's so much more control in photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 12:09
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Yep, I try to place the initial brush stroke in an area that will help me identify it later, so an iris brush goes over the iris first. Face brush goes on the forehead first, sky in the sky, etc. That way they are at least on top of the right area to help clue in the work. I think that when he said "beachball" he was referring to the spinning rainbow cursor that OS X uses to indicate it's working on something. Like the hourglass in Windows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 12:13
|
|
|
quazi posted:A little over 24,000 and it goes up by about 2200/year. I'm at about 20k images after 3 years of photography fun. LR2 performs great, not going to tempt fate and upgrade to LR3 because I am happy with my current work flow. Running: Vista 64 8gigs of ram 2 500gb running a RAID1 Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16G ATI HD4870 1G DDR5 I definitely need to upgrade my storage though.. my photog directory is at about 180gigs. brad industry posted:Ever since I started using lots of adjustment brushes LR has been slow as gently caress, which is unfortunate because I prefer to do dodging/burning in the RAW conversion. I notice this as well. I love painting in different exposure levels and after a while it does start performing like a dog. Even though the most memory I've ever seen LR2 use at a single time was about 900megs it was still hurting performance, must be CPU related. RangerScum fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Jun 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 14:47
|
|
|
I'm just going to post some of my before/afters in here! Let me drag them out...  This was a pretty easy one. Here's a list of what's changed, though: - Forehead - Jawline - Neck - tiny tiny bit of the ears - fingers - nose I thhhiiiink I may have made the bottom lip a little bigger, but other than that, I just brightened the eyes, too. forest spirit fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jun 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
I'm running Lightroom 3 and it's just as fast as 2.6 was for me. Vista 64, Q6600, 8GB RAM, GTX260. All of my photos are on a 500GB drive on a (Samba-based) fileserver I access over gigabit Ethernet. 35462 images in my catalog. Each 21MP image fully loads to 100% view in about three seconds. It does seem to take an extra few seconds the first time I view an image in LR3, though. Maybe previews and such need to be updated?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 02:18
|
|
|
Penpal posted:This was a pretty easy one. Here's a list of what's changed, though: Hmm- all I see is that the shadows have gotten bluer, at least at this resolution I don't notice any of the changes you pointed out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
^ For stuff like this, if it's too obvious you probably did it wrong. Neck and jawline look good, it's funny how much of a difference subtle things like that make.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
Here's another, more "drastic" one. Mostly just thinned out. She's thin anyways, it's just all of the layers she had on and the jacket didn't do her figure any favours. e: for more clarification You've got to really know how the body should/would look whenever you use a liquify tool, and it's when it is not used well it's really noticeable. I have seen friends use it on faces and it quickly gets out of hand, fixing a minor bump there turns into elongating the nose, raising the cheeks..... ....clefting the chin.... ... and other poo poo. It looks awful. I am pretty fortunate to have some beautiful lady friends who like having their picture taken. You really have to do broad strokes, because unless you're like a super-pro, you shouldn't be trying to turn your models into.... skinny... models? Yeah. The one above I basically tightened the strap around her waist, and tried to make it seem like she was wearing a jacket that was a size or two smaller. What I remember is then just systematically going through everything and kind of thinning it. Waist, arms, thighs, face... Shoulders remained untouched, I think. I like women to have broad shoulders, but nothing like 80's BUSINESS SUIT STYLE, just enough to evoke a strong form, even if the pose (like in this one) isn't powerful in the least. forest spirit fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jun 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 03:49
|
|
|
Is a chromasia subscription a good idea for a beginner? I have a novice understanding of how to use photoshop, but I don't really have a grasp of any advanced techniques, and the only use of layers I'm familiar with is for high pass sharpening, from this tutorial. I generally use the tips from this guide to touch up my photos, but I would like to be able to do more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
Anyone willing to critique this processing (e.g., if it's too green or overdone)? Started using Lightroom 3, trying to come up with my own processing method instead of relying on tutorials or presets. Original: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 02:31
|
|
|
I'm looking to buy a new laptop, how do these specs look? Intel Core i7-820QM Processor (8M Cache, 1.73 GHz) Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64 15.6" FHD Display (95% Gamut, 270nit) with LED Backlight NVIDIA Quadro FX 880M Graphics with 1GB DDR3 memory 16 GB PC3-10600 DDR3 SDRAM 1333MHz SODIMM Memory (4 DIMM) 500 GB Hard Disk Drive, 7200rpm Multi Recorder Optical Drive (12.7mm) 9 cell 2.8Ah Li-Ion Battery - Dual Mode Intel Centrino Advanced-N + WiMAX 6250 Integrated Mobile Broadband - Upgradable The Intel Core i7-920XM Processor Extreme Edition (8M Cache, 2.00 GHz) costs about the same as the upgrade from 8 GB RAM to 16 GB. I'm thinking the RAM will serve me better? Also Lenovo offers a color calibrator for $63: "Pantone display calibrator will analyze how the laptop display emits color and will modify your individual display to show true color over the lifetime of the laptop." Anyone have any thoughts on this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 04:52
|
|
|
Instrumedley posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 05:11
|
|
|
I like the original better, but I like the pop in the eyes in your edit. The original might be slightly too warm/pink though, but the edit is a little too green/blue on my (uncalibrated) monitor. Does anybody use Photo Mechanic to cull photos and then use LR for those? The speed of LR3 is kind of annoying, I'm considering picking up Photomechanic, but would rather use the $ towards my new lens & SSD purchases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 05:35
|
|
|
Random question here, I am new to windows and when I have a folder full of RAW files I can't see previews, it just has an icon and says CR2 and the file name. Am I missing something here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 06:54
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:Random question here, I am new to windows and when I have a folder full of RAW files I can't see previews, it just has an icon and says CR2 and the file name. Am I missing something here? http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&tabact=DownloadDetailTabAct&fcategoryid=324&modelid=15206
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 07:00
|
|
|
rear end is my canvas posted:http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&tabact=DownloadDetailTabAct&fcategoryid=324&modelid=15206 Unfortunately that doesn't work if you're using a 64bit install of Windows. I'm pretty sure Canon's stance on that is 'you're just SOL.' If you are running into that problem, the "Fast Picture Viewer" group used to put out a free RAW codec pack for both 32bit and 64bit but while searching for a link it seems they've now pulled the free version and only offer one for $9.99. I don't know if it would constitute as  to link you to the free version they once offered for download, but it has been mirrored all over the place.Here's their current page, though: http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 07:09
|
|
|
Whoa cool
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 07:34
|
|
|
Instrumedley posted:Anyone willing to critique this processing (e.g., if it's too green or overdone)? Started using Lightroom 3, trying to come up with my own processing method instead of relying on tutorials or presets.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 22:23
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I'm looking to buy a new laptop, how do these specs look? Is the the Lenovo W501? I've heard decent things about the W701 screen and I believe the W510 is pretty similar to that. For the money involved I might consider adding an decent sized SSD along with the hard drive so you can boot off the SSD as well as use it for some of the photos you're actively working on. Not sure if you can install an SSD side by side with the hard drive in that laptop, but it'd be worth looking into, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Is the the Lenovo W501? I've heard decent things about the W701 screen and I believe the W510 is pretty similar to that. For the money involved I might consider adding an decent sized SSD along with the hard drive so you can boot off the SSD as well as use it for some of the photos you're actively working on. Not sure if you can install an SSD side by side with the hard drive in that laptop, but it'd be worth looking into, IMO. Not sure if you can do it with this model, but I've seen quiet a few people modding laptops - removing the optical drive and installing an SSD in there. Because, let's face it, not many people actually use optical media these days, and if you do, you can always use a portable USB drive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 01:46
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Ever since I started using lots of adjustment brushes LR has been slow as gently caress, which is unfortunate because I prefer to do dodging/burning in the RAW conversion. I find it's faster to right click on the photo in LR, edit in, Photoshop CS5, edit a copy with lightroom adjustments, do it all there, save the file in PS, go back into LR and be on your merry way, than it is to try and use the adjustment brushes inside LR.. They're just sooo slowwww, especially the spot/dust adjustment. If I need to do anything more fine tuned than a blanket adjustment, it goes off to Photoshop or one of the Nik Software suites. (Which rock btw.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 06:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:Is the the Lenovo W501? I've heard decent things about the W701 screen and I believe the W510 is pretty similar to that. For the money involved I might consider adding an decent sized SSD along with the hard drive so you can boot off the SSD as well as use it for some of the photos you're actively working on. Not sure if you can install an SSD side by side with the hard drive in that laptop, but it'd be worth looking into, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 10:03
|
|