rscheffler
Well-known
I think I understand what you mean.
At this level of photography, we all like some degree of control, but my feeling is the software isn't quite there yet. It's either too simplistic and you don't have a clue as to what's going on 'under the hood', or it's a mass of sliders and options. Photoshop of course is the ultimate app for any control freak. What we probably need is something that literally reads our minds and our moods. Only recently is the software getting to be good and simple enough for the average consumer. This has probably been driven by cellphone cameras and on-board apps. Having just spent ~10 days on the road with my GF, it's interesting to compare photos. Her cellphone images look good and a few clicks of an Instagram-like app can totally transform them. Meanwhile, my Leica M240 images are OK but definitely need a run through LR with individualized tweaks to bring out the best colors and tonal range. Right now they look a bit blah. In this respect, among camera brands, I think Fuji and perhaps Olympus are at the forefront for usable SOOC images - they already look pretty darn good. Probably a worthwhile consideration for those less technically inclined.
I've been pretty happy with Lightroom and have found I can do nearly everything I need with it. Until a few years ago I shot exclusively Canon digital and used their free DPP software... Unlike many, it seems, I liked it. What it lacked was the ability for local adjustments as found in LR or C1, but I still think its output is/was sharper than LR's, and my feeling is the color was better, too. But LR is convenient. Having diversified my camera brands, it's good to have something mainstream that will support practically every RAW file on the market. It keeps my options open. What also keeps me with LR is what just happened with Apple's Aperture - it's end of line. One can spend a lot of time tweaking files. Those settings generally don't translate to other RAW converters. Switching to a new one means reprocessing older files, again, which means more time and I'm in no mood to try yet another RAW converter.
As for the question of profiling/calibrating. I agree monitor calibration is the most important because it directly influences how you see colors. In my early prepress days, the company didn't bother with calibration and each workstation behaved a bit differently. The only way to really know you were in the ballpark was to know the CMYK values for the most common colors... or the most critical colors, which were skin tones.
At this level of photography, we all like some degree of control, but my feeling is the software isn't quite there yet. It's either too simplistic and you don't have a clue as to what's going on 'under the hood', or it's a mass of sliders and options. Photoshop of course is the ultimate app for any control freak. What we probably need is something that literally reads our minds and our moods. Only recently is the software getting to be good and simple enough for the average consumer. This has probably been driven by cellphone cameras and on-board apps. Having just spent ~10 days on the road with my GF, it's interesting to compare photos. Her cellphone images look good and a few clicks of an Instagram-like app can totally transform them. Meanwhile, my Leica M240 images are OK but definitely need a run through LR with individualized tweaks to bring out the best colors and tonal range. Right now they look a bit blah. In this respect, among camera brands, I think Fuji and perhaps Olympus are at the forefront for usable SOOC images - they already look pretty darn good. Probably a worthwhile consideration for those less technically inclined.
I've been pretty happy with Lightroom and have found I can do nearly everything I need with it. Until a few years ago I shot exclusively Canon digital and used their free DPP software... Unlike many, it seems, I liked it. What it lacked was the ability for local adjustments as found in LR or C1, but I still think its output is/was sharper than LR's, and my feeling is the color was better, too. But LR is convenient. Having diversified my camera brands, it's good to have something mainstream that will support practically every RAW file on the market. It keeps my options open. What also keeps me with LR is what just happened with Apple's Aperture - it's end of line. One can spend a lot of time tweaking files. Those settings generally don't translate to other RAW converters. Switching to a new one means reprocessing older files, again, which means more time and I'm in no mood to try yet another RAW converter.
As for the question of profiling/calibrating. I agree monitor calibration is the most important because it directly influences how you see colors. In my early prepress days, the company didn't bother with calibration and each workstation behaved a bit differently. The only way to really know you were in the ballpark was to know the CMYK values for the most common colors... or the most critical colors, which were skin tones.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
No big league techie here, I run the Spyder when I think about it and then just adjust the printer to get what matches the screen as best I can.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Every time I am set to print digitally, I always end up thinking that it'd be more satisfying to print in my darkroom.
Unfortunately, right now I don't even have time for either process.
Unfortunately, right now I don't even have time for either process.
raid
Dad Photographer
I am (as usual) several years behind the digital revolution, so to speak.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
Raid, don't worry about it.
I used to be behind too, briefly tried taking on home printing, shortly after which I kicked my printer round the back yard with frustration. Next, I decided to 'outsource' my printing to the local photography shop, finish my photos with their color profile, and presto, see my current m.o.
In general, whenever I need some printing done for personal use I get a discount from the local photography shop since I direct all my clients to them for printing.
In retrospect, it wasn't all that hard getting from 'behind' to 'ahead'
raid
Dad Photographer
Hi Johan,
I simply don't want to spend a lot of time on digital image perfection when I could be having a quality time with my family and with taking photos ... and also getting some work done at the university. I am glad that you eventually settled on what works best for you and your needs.
I simply don't want to spend a lot of time on digital image perfection when I could be having a quality time with my family and with taking photos ... and also getting some work done at the university. I am glad that you eventually settled on what works best for you and your needs.
Baby of Macon
Well-known
I just edit everything on the same imac so all my work is edited in the same monitor. I don;t know whether its calibration is good or bad, but when I check my work in the gallery on my macbook pro, it looks pretty consistent with what I see from the other machine. But then I have still to hand off any significant amount of work to an commercial printer, so if I had to do that, perhaps I'd need to be more fussy about monitor calibration etc.