WoolenMammoth
Well-known
Well, for better or worse its looking like there is a new M8 in my immediate future. Still very much on the fence about shooting video, but I suppose that is a different discussion all together.
I obviously have a bunch of reading to do, but is there any obvious new user stuff that I should know about?
Im on a Mac and using CS2 with system 10.4, any reccomendations on the best way to import and deal with things?
I wish I was excited about this, I feel like I totally just sold out... sigh.
I obviously have a bunch of reading to do, but is there any obvious new user stuff that I should know about?
Im on a Mac and using CS2 with system 10.4, any reccomendations on the best way to import and deal with things?
I wish I was excited about this, I feel like I totally just sold out... sigh.
monochrome_joy
Analog Enlightenment
Hm, I struggle with this myself. I'll have the money in a few months to get a new/upgraded camera system and I'm torn between the M8 and a 5D MkI with a lens or two.
Practically speaking the 5D wins hands down, especially considering it is full frame and has great performance. The downside of course is size and weight.
Emotionally, the Leica wins. I had a great time in Vietnam with my Leica M6 and a few primes. I really enjoyed carrying a small camera bag (BareBones Bag) with another lens and a few other items. The camera was so small and never failed. The downside is that it is slower and can't take the longer lenses.
I own a 30D, which makes the possibility of an M8 easier for me to consider.
Currently I'm thinking I'll go with the M8 and if it doesn't work for me, sell it at a loss and get a 5D. I think the M8 will hold its value better than a 5D and I'd rather go for the emotional purchase and regret it than go for the practical purchase and always wonder.
Practically speaking the 5D wins hands down, especially considering it is full frame and has great performance. The downside of course is size and weight.
Emotionally, the Leica wins. I had a great time in Vietnam with my Leica M6 and a few primes. I really enjoyed carrying a small camera bag (BareBones Bag) with another lens and a few other items. The camera was so small and never failed. The downside is that it is slower and can't take the longer lenses.
I own a 30D, which makes the possibility of an M8 easier for me to consider.
Currently I'm thinking I'll go with the M8 and if it doesn't work for me, sell it at a loss and get a 5D. I think the M8 will hold its value better than a 5D and I'd rather go for the emotional purchase and regret it than go for the practical purchase and always wonder.
Bassism
Well-known
As far as software goes, I highly recommend using either Aperture or Lightroom. Each has its own small niggles, but I find that the overall workflow and ideology of Aperture suits me much more. They're both available as a free trial, so download both, use each one for two weeks and see which works better for you.
These RAW workflow-type apps are incredibly effective. You don't have to deal with file structure, they have non-destructive editing, and the typical things that you do to a photo are more easily accomplished than in CS2. For whenever you need to do some specific photoshopping, both allow you to seamlessly edit in photoshop.
These RAW workflow-type apps are incredibly effective. You don't have to deal with file structure, they have non-destructive editing, and the typical things that you do to a photo are more easily accomplished than in CS2. For whenever you need to do some specific photoshopping, both allow you to seamlessly edit in photoshop.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
my personal strife is between film and video not an m8 and some other video camera, slr's are not a possibility for me.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
please bear with my newbness on this...
If (assuming) the most recent version of photoshop with handle a raw file, is there much of a reason to deal with aperature or lightroom at all? I should check these out and see what makes the most sense for my the workflow Im used to scanning film.
Regardless of where the DNG file winds up, you are still using the leica bundled software to do the initial import?
I am soooo behind the curve with all this stuff. Welcome to like, 2004, haha.
If (assuming) the most recent version of photoshop with handle a raw file, is there much of a reason to deal with aperature or lightroom at all? I should check these out and see what makes the most sense for my the workflow Im used to scanning film.
Regardless of where the DNG file winds up, you are still using the leica bundled software to do the initial import?
I am soooo behind the curve with all this stuff. Welcome to like, 2004, haha.
Bassism
Well-known
The early reviews of Aperture and Lightroom do a pretty good job of explaining the things that differ from a traditional digital workflow.
You use Aperture to import the DNG originally. It imports it into a database, much like iTunes does. From there, the DNG never gets modified. Every time you view or edit a photo, it does all of the edits in real time as you view it. In effect this means that you have unlimited undo without being constrained to the order of your edits. You can also easily make a new "version" of a file. You can have an infinite number of versions of a photo without using up any extra disk space.
I really like this way of working. As I'm editing a photo, I can split off a new version to test out a different crop or convert to black and white; if I don't like it, I just delete the version and go back to where I was. It's a very organic way of working that I much prefer over the standard "open it in photoshop and do these things then hit save" approach.
The typical edits you do to a photo are also much easier in Aperture. Photoshop is a big, complicated program that a photographer typically uses about 3% of in editing a photo. Aperture pares it down to just the stuff you need and lets you do it faster and easier.
Personally I hated digital editing until I started using Aperture. Now I even import all of my scans into Aperture and edit them there too.
The early reviews of Aperture do a pretty good job of explaining the differences in workflow compared to the traditional method, I think.
You use Aperture to import the DNG originally. It imports it into a database, much like iTunes does. From there, the DNG never gets modified. Every time you view or edit a photo, it does all of the edits in real time as you view it. In effect this means that you have unlimited undo without being constrained to the order of your edits. You can also easily make a new "version" of a file. You can have an infinite number of versions of a photo without using up any extra disk space.
I really like this way of working. As I'm editing a photo, I can split off a new version to test out a different crop or convert to black and white; if I don't like it, I just delete the version and go back to where I was. It's a very organic way of working that I much prefer over the standard "open it in photoshop and do these things then hit save" approach.
The typical edits you do to a photo are also much easier in Aperture. Photoshop is a big, complicated program that a photographer typically uses about 3% of in editing a photo. Aperture pares it down to just the stuff you need and lets you do it faster and easier.
Personally I hated digital editing until I started using Aperture. Now I even import all of my scans into Aperture and edit them there too.
The early reviews of Aperture do a pretty good job of explaining the differences in workflow compared to the traditional method, I think.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
I didnt realize aperture was an apple program, if its database is anything like itunes, I'll loathe it. I gotta DL the trial and give it a peek. Ive been using photoshop since its first version whenever that was, a million years ago, so its a natural environment Im comfortable with, I cant stand the idea of software doing file management for me.
Is anyone using the bundled leica software or going directly to third party?
Is anyone using the bundled leica software or going directly to third party?
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
Just plug in and SD reader and drag the DNG files to a folder and then open it Bridge. Just let OS-X do the heavy lifting.
Just mange files like you do now.
I have used Lightroom and went back to Photoshop. Not enough third party plug-in that I use for it.
Of course ACR does DNG, Adobe developed DNG.
Just mange files like you do now.
I have used Lightroom and went back to Photoshop. Not enough third party plug-in that I use for it.
Of course ACR does DNG, Adobe developed DNG.
Last edited:
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
ok, thats too easy. I need to upgrade photoshop anyway, this makes a good excuse.
Is there anything unique about lightroom in regards to photoshop? From what I can tell skimming the website it looks fairly redundant to have CS4 and lightroom, is there a good reason to be working in both?
Bassism
Well-known
Lightroom doesn't do anything that PS can't (aside from the non-destructive editing), the difference just lies in the workflow and how you do things.
astroman
-
Ive been using aperture for over a year and find it excellent.
dfoo
Well-known
Lightroom for photo editing is incredibly easy to use compared to photoshop. What is lacking, however, for film scan editing is the inability to clone out scratches. Of course, for the m8 that isn't an issue 
peterm1
Veteran
Having tried it, I like Lightroom but mainly for basic editing, like sharpening, noise reduction, contrast and colour, prior to conversion to JPG. I use Corel Paint Shop Pro as an alternative to Photoshop and find that I would still need one or other if I had Lightroom full time. This is because most of my photos will get a fair bit of working over (dodging /burning etc) that can't be done in Lightroom. Never the less Lightroom is very easy and intuitive to use. It probably depends on your style of photography. If you only tweak your photos and do not exensively modify them, Lightroom may be perfectly adequate.
Having said that my purpose in using Paint Shop Photo Pro x2 rather than Photoshop is that while it hase most if not all of Photoshops high end capabilities like Layers you can do a great deal of editing without the need for complex steps (it has a lot of assisted editing tools and some nice filters. Photoshop has some high end capabilites but the truth is I almost never use them and find them damn difficult to use when I do.)
Having said that my purpose in using Paint Shop Photo Pro x2 rather than Photoshop is that while it hase most if not all of Photoshops high end capabilities like Layers you can do a great deal of editing without the need for complex steps (it has a lot of assisted editing tools and some nice filters. Photoshop has some high end capabilites but the truth is I almost never use them and find them damn difficult to use when I do.)
enochRoot
a chymist of some repute
not sure if it applies, but CS4 requires intel-based macs to run.
Lightroom doesn't feature dodging/burning? How about Aperture? That would be important, but I don't care about their file management/cataloging, as that's what the Mac's Finder is for. I really dislike the idea of "importing" files into a database like iPhoto. Both PS and GraphicConverter have graphic browsers, so that's taken care of, but (like WoolenMammoth) I've had (but little used) Photoshop since the Stone Age.
As suggested, I slip the SD card into a USB reader, plug it into the Mac, and copy the folder over to my folder of graphics awaiting work. I treat the contents of the card like a roll of film, and rename the folder and its contents accordingly, with reference to a tech data file done in FileMaker, one record per "roll". I open the new folder in a browser window in GrahicConverter and get started editing, using Save-As to put edited files in other folders. GC is pretty satisfactory but is short on certain abilities, thus my interest in Aperture and Lightroom as maybe easier to use than PS...
As suggested, I slip the SD card into a USB reader, plug it into the Mac, and copy the folder over to my folder of graphics awaiting work. I treat the contents of the card like a roll of film, and rename the folder and its contents accordingly, with reference to a tech data file done in FileMaker, one record per "roll". I open the new folder in a browser window in GrahicConverter and get started editing, using Save-As to put edited files in other folders. GC is pretty satisfactory but is short on certain abilities, thus my interest in Aperture and Lightroom as maybe easier to use than PS...
boy_lah
Discovering RF
re Lightroom - version 2 now has dodge and burn. This feature was the 'most' requested enhancement from version 1 users.
I originally used LR1 sparingly for my casual candids and left heavy lifting to Photoshop but I now pretty much use LR2 for 80-90% of my work. It is such a time saver (I prefer shooting not sitting in front of a pc) and encourages you to take the shot you want in the first place - since it can't make a desert shot look like it was taken in the ocean. For that, use Photoshop/Paintshop Pro etc...
re 5D vs m8 - I had the 5D but and went for a used m8 instead of the 5Dmk2. The decision for me came down to 1 - the m8 made me take more time and more care and therefore i got better photos; 2 - because of the size/weight I had a camera with me everyday/everywhere and i now get shots i wouldn't have otherwise; 3 - i could borrow a d-slr if i needed it e.g. weddings etc.
I've not looked back since although when snapping my fast moving 14month old i could do with AF but that's about it.
I definitely 'prefer' the output from my m8 although 5D's output is pretty amazing already.
I originally used LR1 sparingly for my casual candids and left heavy lifting to Photoshop but I now pretty much use LR2 for 80-90% of my work. It is such a time saver (I prefer shooting not sitting in front of a pc) and encourages you to take the shot you want in the first place - since it can't make a desert shot look like it was taken in the ocean. For that, use Photoshop/Paintshop Pro etc...
re 5D vs m8 - I had the 5D but and went for a used m8 instead of the 5Dmk2. The decision for me came down to 1 - the m8 made me take more time and more care and therefore i got better photos; 2 - because of the size/weight I had a camera with me everyday/everywhere and i now get shots i wouldn't have otherwise; 3 - i could borrow a d-slr if i needed it e.g. weddings etc.
I've not looked back since although when snapping my fast moving 14month old i could do with AF but that's about it.
I definitely 'prefer' the output from my m8 although 5D's output is pretty amazing already.
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
Lightroom's Color Management for printing is not up to Photoshop.
eef
Established
Aperture has dodge and burn, and a plug-in architecture that now hosts Noise Ninja, Nik sharpener, and a bunch of other tools (that I do not use). You can choose to do some of the file management yourself, but you have to tell it which files to put into "projects" and "albums", not a big deal.
I like being able to do everything from import to export to print in one relatively intuitive application. That said, I always hated Photoshop.
I like being able to do everything from import to export to print in one relatively intuitive application. That said, I always hated Photoshop.
runny
Established
Digital workflow
Digital workflow
I have been using Aperture right from V1 - in spite of the issues with that release. Now at version 2.2 it is simply excellent and works well with both the M8 and R-D1s files I have. I have Photoshop CS4 for the very rare times I need to do something more complex - like remove barrel distortion or stitch a panorama together. Aperture is simple, complete and has good backup and recovery features. The non-destructive editing (does 99.9% of what you need) enables me to play around with photos to my hearts content. The tools themselves mimic what you would do in a darkroom with film.
Bear in mind that you will end up with GIGABYTES of RAW files from your shooting and trusting them to chance would be a disaster. My Aperture library is now over 250GB - so having a proper backup system (called Vaults) in Aperture gives me some level of security.
David
Digital workflow
I have been using Aperture right from V1 - in spite of the issues with that release. Now at version 2.2 it is simply excellent and works well with both the M8 and R-D1s files I have. I have Photoshop CS4 for the very rare times I need to do something more complex - like remove barrel distortion or stitch a panorama together. Aperture is simple, complete and has good backup and recovery features. The non-destructive editing (does 99.9% of what you need) enables me to play around with photos to my hearts content. The tools themselves mimic what you would do in a darkroom with film.
Bear in mind that you will end up with GIGABYTES of RAW files from your shooting and trusting them to chance would be a disaster. My Aperture library is now over 250GB - so having a proper backup system (called Vaults) in Aperture gives me some level of security.
David
user237428934
User deletion pending
As far as I know you don't have to import the files completely in the aperture or iphoto library. There is an option that only the changes are recorded in the database and the files are outside the database. This prevents the database from growing too big and getting potential backup problems.