The Photography Thread

[andrewfee]

Photo Organisation, how do you do yours?

I'm almost exclusively using Apple's Aperture now, though I'm still learning my way around its interface. There are things that I like about it, and things that I don't. My main issue is the way that it handles colour - images look the same in Aperture as they do in Safari, but if I'm exporting for the web they tend to look desaturated in Firefox. I think it's just tagging images with sRGB on export, rather than converting to them.

I have found a workaround though which is to set my display profile to sRGB, load it up, and then switch it to my calibrated one, which seems to keep colour consistent.

I'm thinking about making the switch to Lightroom, as its interface seems to be smaller, letting you focus on the images more - I really like the way you can set things to auto-hide, whereas in Aperture, I'm using keyboard shortcuts all the time to quickly change the layout.

Unfortunately I was having to base my purchase off the video tutorials on Apple's site as they didn't have a trial available back when I bought it.

I don't like the way it handles sharpening though, and when I last used Lightroom (beta 2) I didn't much like its way of handling it either. (I prefer USM) Lightroom was also very slow when I last used it - it would have to be at least as quick as Aperture is on my MacBook Pro for me to consider switching.

For people that have, or are thinking about switching to Lightroom, Luminous Landscape is putting up a rather large video tutorial which is only $15: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...uminated.shtml

Seems like a good way to learn the program in-depth without having to spend a lot of time with a trial (assuming one is available) experimenting with it.

[PeteJ]

Gonna try this one again at some point, but my battery just ran out of juice! Quite tricky playing the game and taking shots at the same time... I need an assistant!

[bangaio]

Sorry to be so far behind. I just noticed that the new 1D-mIII has a 1.3x crop due to the sensor. I don't see how this is a good move...maybe just me being picky.

All Canon 1D cameras have had a 1.3x sensor since the beginning of time (or the beginning of the 1D range at least!) They are used by sports and news photographers where the extra reach given is nice (by the crop) and who need lightning fast autofocus and frame rate and ultra solid build. For most people there is no point at all of buying a 1D.

For fashion and stuff like that there is the 1Ds range.

[Gareth C]

I didn't realise. I assumed the mark II onward was full frame.

Oh well, wasn't likely to buy one either way!

[Ginger Tosser]

The 1D Mark IIn is 1.3 crop, but its mainly used as a photojournalists/sports tog tool so the crop isn't an issue. It wins with the fast frame rate needed by these users

The 1Ds Mark II is the full frame 16mp, this is aimed at studio work hence a slower 4 fps.

Andrew, I couldn't get on with Aperture due to only having a MacMini, seems not powerful enough for it. Lightrooms speed is so much better than the beta version. It's certainly worth having a go with the trial (30 day).

Richard, I use the cokin 'P' filter system. I do have the same lens but the filter does get in the way between 17-20mm. Probably the only way to avoid it is to use the Lee Filter system, however they are very expensive (very good though!). It doesn't bother me too much if i have to crop the image to remove the filter cover.

As for protection filters, I used to fit UV protectors. But now i can't be bothered. Some people swear by them others don't. I never noticed any difference in the image quality with the filters. Maybe its good practice to use the lens hood instead (17-40 & 24-105 are massive as you know!). Oh, I have scratched the front element on my 70-200mm. Its off centre so it does effect the image.

[andrewfee]

Andrew, I couldn't get on with Aperture due to only having a MacMini, seems not powerful enough for it. Lightrooms speed is so much better than the beta version. It's certainly worth having a go with the trial (30 day).

Aperture really does seem to need a quick machine to perform well, but once you get over a certain speed it seems to do really well. I'm happy with how it performs on my 2.33GHz Core2 MacBook Pro.

Lightroom does seem quite a bit faster though; I've tried it out today. In the beta at least it had some real performance issues with large libraries though, whereas Aperture seemed to handle them ok; does anyone know how the final copes?

There are parts of each program that I like really, and parts of both that I dislike as well.

Neither does well exporting for the web, as far as I can see. Images have to be tagged for sRGB which means that they look different in Firefox/Safari, whereas photoshop's "Save for Web" looks the same in both. (I believe it converts rather than just tagging the image) It also means that in Firefox, the image looks nothing like the one I've spent a long time editing in Aperture.

I hope I'm just doing something wrong, but I can't figure it out for either of them, unless I just use a generic sRGB profile on my display rather than calibrating it. (which looks like ****)

[Ginger Tosser]

Someone explained a bit about Lightroom to me today.

It doesn't edit the picture, only the metadata associated with it. Hence why when you edit an image with photoshop it creates a copy of the file first. I've not had too much experience with the final version (only had it 4 days!), but i've got to catalogue around 2000 images on both an external firewire and internal (slow MacMini Hdd) volume. It seems to cope o.k. It does have moments when it seems to pause if you ask it to do too much. I guess that is down to it being on the Mini. I've got a 2ghz Core2 Macbook which the beta ran much better on. I'll have a go at installing it on that this evening to test (unless Mr Smirnoff calls again).

As for colour space. I use a slightly calibrated one. My web images seem to be o.k. when i view them away from home.

[andrewfee]

The weird thing is that if I load up the program using a generic sRGB profile on my display, and then switch it to my calibrated one, it looks as it should, and matches Firefox upon exporting. (but not Safari)

As far as I'm concerned the "uncalibrated" view in Firefox (it doesn't use colorsync) is more correct than the view I'm getting in Aperture/Safari without this workaround though, as it matches what I'm seeing on the camera much more closely.

If I export it using my display profile, rather than sRGB then I get consistent colour across everything, but that means larger files, and as far as I'm concerned, it's consistently wrong, even if it is consistent. (blues take on a violet tone for a start)

Aperture does the same thing as Lightroom; non-destructive editing. One of the things I like about Aperture is that you can use the fixed loupe tool to get a realtime window for your edits, with the whole image updating once it's processed, rather than having to wait for the full thing like you do in lightroom. (it's usually quick though, but not as quick as aperture's way of doing it)

I think aperture relies on your video card more than just the processor like lightroom does, as it uses CoreImage, which would explain why the mini had issues.

I prefer the way aperture is a more "open" interface, letting you set it up how you want it, rather than having to switch between a library view, and a developing one etc. I would like a way to create a couple of preset layouts to quickly switch between though, or the ability to auto-hide things like you can in Lightroom.

[bangaio]

Ging - do you not shoot raw? Most Raw editors only adjust parameters and store the adjustments in a small file. Raw Shooter, Phase One, DPP, Aperture, Camera Raw, Lightroom (you get the idea!) all edit raw files in this way - they are non destructive and you loose no data nor do you add to it.

In my RSP workflow I first adjust white balance, exposure, then levels, shadows and highlight adjustment either using sliders or curves, then move to colour and then tweak my image.

I then output to a TIFF - this is the "Processing" bit - fixing your image which I sharpen with focal blade within photoshop and I am done. Output to aRGB for printing with QImage (which is amazing!)

If you don't use Raw - you should if only for the non destructive nature and pp options you get.

Lightroom is nice but the importing database idea is a pain still after beta and the sliders have odd numbers associated with them and seem very odd and a bit too automated - I need to play around with it a bit.

This is fyi the RSP interface which I love and is the reason lightroom is taking some getting used to although I do like the lack of sharpening and noise reduction which RSP uses in spades.

[Ginger Tosser]

Layout of RSP looks like Lightroom, but in a slightly different order!

I do shoot raw, before would correct a few things in Adobe Camera Raw (in Bridge) then crop etc in Photoshop.

[Richard.John]

Richard, I use the cokin 'P' filter system. I do have the same lens but the filter does get in the way between 17-20mm. Probably the only way to avoid it is to use the Lee Filter system, however they are very expensive (very good though!). It doesn't bother me too much if i have to crop the image to remove the filter cover.

OK, thanks for that. I will investigate further.

[Alastair]

How was the show GT? What did you buy?

[Ginger Tosser]

I thought it was a bit cack tbh, too busy. Sundays are always like that though. Prices weren't too bad for things, however i'm looking to get a 50mm f/1.4 but no one had one. They all had the 50mm f/1.8 (£70 ish) and 50mm f/1.2 (bloody expensive) though. Got some free mints from the Arri lighting stand so all was not lost.

Also lots of people wearing there SLR badge of honour around their neck. I have to ask why???? O.k. some are for photographing the ladies on some of the stands

[MartyG]

Also lots of people wearing there SLR badge of honour around their neck. I have to ask why????

Perhaps they wanted to try new lenses on their bodies and have the resulting images to view at home

[Gareth C]

They all had the 50mm f/1.8 (?70 ish) and 50mm f/1.2 (bloody expensive) though.

How much was the 1.2 available for?