Any filmies not use lr

AshleyC

AshleyC

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,956
Name
...
Edit My Images
No
Just thinking about the current state of lightroom an where it's going, I was thinking of jumping ship to something else. All I can think of is capture 1, but the problem I find with that is it doesnt always recognise my scanned TIFF files. Lightroom handles them all.

I'm on version 6 at the moment so it will last me a while. But I'm trying to think of other apps that have that whole database/catalogue system to take over from it
 
As a filmie myself, I use a darkroom or a dev tank and a changing bag.:)
 
I used to use Nikon Capture NX2

It's auto function is much better than LR's auto function.

I'm sometimes tempted to go back to it.

You do need to scan print Tiff. I think that's what it's called. The word "print" is definitely in there.
 
AshleyC said:
Just thinking about the current state of lightroom an where it's going, I was thinking of jumping ship to something else. All I can think of is capture 1, but the problem I find with that is it doesnt always recognise my scanned TIFF files. Lightroom handles them all.

I'm on version 6 at the moment so it will last me a while. But I'm trying to think of other apps that have that whole database/catalogue system to take over from it
Click to expand...

Well I think many of us can't see the difference between tiff and jpg files...some say the disadvantage of jpg's is that if you continue to save over many, many alterations then then it effects the quality (debatable). So you could change to jpg?
 
I've got an old version of LR which I'm in no hurry to change, temped to fire up my linux partition and try darktable but I never seem to get round to it.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I think many of us can't see the difference between tiff and jpg files...some say the disadvantage of jpg's is that if you continue to save over many, many alterations then then it effects the quality (debatable). So you could change to jpg?
Click to expand...
JPEG is a lossy file format and limited to 8 bit files whereas TIFF is not a lossy format and can be 16 bit, this means that there will be a lot more editing latitude with the TIFF file...

Ver 6 isn't going to suddenly stop working so maybe carry on working with LR till something else more suitable to your needs comes along.
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I think many of us can't see the difference between tiff and jpg files...some say the disadvantage of jpg's is that if you continue to save over many, many alterations then then it effects the quality (debatable). So you could change to jpg?
Click to expand...


6 in my tests using Photoshop and highest quality jpg. And that was clearly visible when viewing the image full screen on my monitor (i.e. whatever size from the full image filled my screen). I didn't bother checking at 100% or anything fancy, as I was just interested in when the drop off was really obvious on a smaller image.

The big difference between 8 and 16 bits becomes apparent if you look at the histogram after making a small tonal adjustment in black and white.

As to the actual topic under discussion, I've never tried Lightroom or bothered with any cataloguing system other than a database of contents of the hanging (slide) files in my filing cabinets. For non-slides, contact prints filed in the binders with the negatives has always been enough, although with 5x4 I have moved into the computer age and have Photoshop generated contact sheets filed on my computer (4 images to a sheet).
 
steveo_mcg said:
I've got an old version of LR which I'm in no hurry to change, temped to fire up my linux partition and try darktable but I never seem to get round to it.
Click to expand...

I bought a copy of LR5 for a few quid - it works with all the film scan stuff, and is up to date enough to have import filters for all my dijikal cameras at the moment, and as I can't see ANY purchases of more modern cameras in the foreseeable future, I really don't care too much about how the subscription model LR will end up.
 
simon ess said:
I used to use Nikon Capture NX2

It's auto function is much better than LR's auto function.

I'm sometimes tempted to go back to it.

You do need to scan print Tiff. I think that's what it's called. The word "print" is definitely in there.
Click to expand...


:D

I thought I was the only one on Earth still using Nikon Capture, its not NX2, although I have it but prefer NC.
Initially I used it for the remote camera control software that was bundled with it back in the day, I don't use that anymore but never bothered changing to anything else, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
I've tried other edit suits like LR but I can't be doing with their incessant prompting to catalogue and compile the hell out of everything.
Only thing I miss is a dust spotting tool, I'm fine with global adjustments...:)
 
I still play a little with old scanned files and have never used lightroom - any PP gets done in PSE and an old version of that!
 
StephenM said:
6 in my tests using Photoshop and highest quality jpg. And that was clearly visible when viewing the image full screen on my monitor (i.e. whatever size from the full image filled my screen). I didn't bother checking at 100% or anything fancy, as I was just interested in when the drop off was really obvious on a smaller image.
Click to expand...

AAMOI using the V750 scanning at 3200dpi I couldn't see any difference blowing up the image between a tiff file or Jpg....reduced the size to 1000px on the longest size for jpg, also reduced the size of the tiff file to 1000px on the longest side (and selected in Photoshop no compression)..and still couldn't see a difference.
Maybe the V750 isn't capable of showing a difference using Epson software between tiff or jpg OR the V750 just ain't a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier h'mm
 
excalibur2 said:
AAMOI using the V750 scanning at 3200dpi I couldn't see any difference blowing up the image between a tiff file or Jpg....reduced the size to 1000px on the longest size for jpg, also reduced the size of the tiff file to 1000px on the longest side (and selected in Photoshop no compression)..and still couldn't see a difference.
Maybe the V750 isn't capable of showing a difference using Epson software between tiff or jpg OR the V750 just ain't a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier h'mm
Click to expand...

I don't see the relevance to my post which you quoted?
 
so where did the multiple save iterations come in Brian ?

Stephen was speaking about the degradation coming about after multiple times saved and re-loaded - in his test the issues became visible after 6 cycles of saving and re-loading (it I'm reading his post correctly)...

whereas you seemed to be just comparing the same file at two different sizes...
 
TheBigYin said:
so where did the multiple save iterations come in Brian ?

Stephen was speaking about the degradation coming about after multiple times saved and re-loaded - in his test the issues became visible after 6 cycles of saving and re-loading (it I'm reading his post correctly)...

whereas you seemed to be just comparing the same file at two different sizes...
Click to expand...

Ah well IMO saving once doesn't make any difference ;) Then the answer could be:- scan you file at say 3200 dpi for jpg then do all you alterations then reduce the file size...which would help the OPs problem with Lightroom not recognising some tiff files.
 
Who in their right mind would open a jpeg, work on and save, then open that file, etc multiple times?
 
kendo1 said:
Who in their right mind would open a jpeg, work on and save, then open that file, etc multiple times?
Click to expand...

Well Ken I'll admit to that (not my fault though):- the files from Asda and noticed some from film dev are too bright (my guess is the m\c is set for prints) so I alter them, also down to 1000px and save, then sometimes the image from Photoshop to F&C and the image can have a cast or not bright enough etc so adjust and save again (to suit F&C) :eek:...but then if the image has degraded I've not noticed the difference....but I'm posting 1000px on the longest side so probably wouldn't see any difference anyway.
 
kendo1 said:
Who in their right mind would open a jpeg, work on and save, then open that file, etc multiple times?
Click to expand...

well, as quite a lot of my stuff has multiple iterations of edits, I don't work with jpg's...

I think some of my shots could have had upwards of 10 attempts at editing them - mainly because I only edit for half a hour or so at a time before saving and leaving the program for a while - generally staring at the shot and trying to work out what needs to be done next... Okay, I'm talking mainly digital stuff that gets the big stack of edits - because some of it's more in the realms of digital artwork I guess - but even film stuff will get a first pass over as dust-spotting. Then a second looking for any other aberation or alterations. A third for dodge/burn and maybe a 4th for sharpening... it soon mounts up.

Of course, I've never actually claimed to be in my right mind either...
 
Isn't the artistic bit supposed to be in one's left mind? :wideyed:
 
TheBigYin said:
well, as quite a lot of my stuff has multiple iterations of edits, I don't work with jpg's...

I think some of my shots could have had upwards of 10 attempts at editing them - mainly because I only edit for half a hour or so at a time before saving and leaving the program for a while - generally staring at the shot and trying to work out what needs to be done next... Okay, I'm talking mainly digital stuff that gets the big stack of edits - because some of it's more in the realms of digital artwork I guess - but even film stuff will get a first pass over as dust-spotting. Then a second looking for any other aberation or alterations. A third for dodge/burn and maybe a 4th for sharpening... it soon mounts up.

Of course, I've never actually claimed to be in my right mind either...
Click to expand...

I do it one go. I prefer not to work on a pic for more than about 5 minutes. Any longer and I should have taken the pic better in the first place.
Pig's ears, and all that :)
 
Like Ken, I try to do everything in one session, whether it's a scanned neg/slide or a digi shot. I shoot JPEG when digital (large, fine - JPEG is enough of a compromise to lose any more potential!) and do as little as possible to shots - usually just straightening the horizon (even the inbuilt levels these days allow wonkiness...) and resizing/sharpening. If I want different versions of a shot, I'll go back to the original digitization and start again from scratch rather than risk the save/open/save/open cycles that degrade JPEGs after a few repetitions. I've produced enough t*rds to know when to stop trying to polish them!!! (But do also have a specially bought shiny coprolite to prove that it IS possible.)
 
kendo1 said:
I do it one go. I prefer not to work on a pic for more than about 5 minutes. Any longer and I should have taken the pic better in the first place.
Pig's ears, and all that :)
Click to expand...

That's fine as long as what you want to do can be acheived in camera. ;)
 
TheBigYin said:
Stephen was speaking about the degradation coming about after multiple times saved and re-loaded - in his test the issues became visible after 6 cycles of saving and re-loading (it I'm reading his post correctly)...
Click to expand...

That was indeed my meaning. I'd read so many times about repeated resaving of jpgs degrading them, and I wanted to find out from my own experience how true it was, and how many times were needed to make a visible difference when viewed full screen on my monitor (again, note, not 100%). I probably used the jpg from a Minolta 7D for the tests, which fills the screen at 50%.

kendo1 said:
Who in their right mind would open a jpeg, work on and save, then open that file, etc multiple times?
Click to expand...

First, the mere fact that I can detect a difference after 6 saves implies that, even if I can't immediately see it, even one save will have lost something (jpg is a lossy format, after all). And I don't see any need to lose anything if I don't have to.

As I work in black and white, jpg isn't a sensible file choice anyway; but I do work over and save tiffs several times. I don't rush setting up the camera and making the exposure, and I don't rush the afterwork. If Edward Weston could take 3 days to get a perfect print in a darkroom, I don't feel that I need prove my superiority by achieving the perfect print digitally in 5 minutes. More seriously, I find I need to have a "finished" print to examine at length and over a period of days becfore I'm satisifed that it is as good as I can get it.

I also use a Windows computer, and have for many years. That means I expect that (with early versions) it could crash at any time (which encouraged the habit of frequent saves). These days, on Win10, I know that at some point it will decide that for my own good it simply must reboot to ensure that essential updates are done, whether I want it or not (Microsoft always know best, after all). Hence, even if I intend to finish the editing, I can't guarantee that Microsoft will allow it.

Sorry - very off topic :jaffa:
 
StephenM said:
That was indeed my meaning. I'd read so many times about repeated resaving of jpgs degrading them, and I wanted to find out from my own experience how true it was, and how many times were needed to make a visible difference when viewed full screen on my monitor (again, note, not 100%). I probably used the jpg from a Minolta 7D for the tests, which fills the screen at 50%.



First, the mere fact that I can detect a difference after 6 saves implies that, even if I can't immediately see it, even one save will have lost something (jpg is a lossy format, after all). And I don't see any need to lose anything if I don't have to.

As I work in black and white, jpg isn't a sensible file choice anyway; but I do work over and save tiffs several times. I don't rush setting up the camera and making the exposure, and I don't rush the afterwork. If Edward Weston could take 3 days to get a perfect print in a darkroom, I don't feel that I need prove my superiority by achieving the perfect print digitally in 5 minutes. More seriously, I find I need to have a "finished" print to examine at length and over a period of days becfore I'm satisifed that it is as good as I can get it.

I also use a Windows computer, and have for many years. That means I expect that (with early versions) it could crash at any time (which encouraged the habit of frequent saves). These days, on Win10, I know that at some point it will decide that for my own good it simply must reboot to ensure that essential updates are done, whether I want it or not (Microsoft always know best, after all). Hence, even if I intend to finish the editing, I can't guarantee that Microsoft will allow it.

Sorry - very off topic :jaffa:
Click to expand...

Who is proving superiority? And who in their right mind would spend three days getting it right. And I don't think my efforts are perfect!
This is a fun hobby. I'll stick with the fun bit. I'm an amateur snapper. :)

If you want to spend three days getting it right in PP then go ahead. Each to their own. I'm just doing a bit of sharpening, straightening and such like. I'm not selling anything so a pretty pic will satisfy me - I don't need perfection.
 
kendo1 said:
Who is proving superiority? And who in their right mind would spend three days getting it right. And I don't think my efforts are perfect!
This is a fun hobby. I'll stick with the fun bit. I'm an amateur snapper. :)

If you want to spend three days getting it right in PP then go ahead. Each to their own. I'm just doing a bit of sharpening, straightening and such like. I'm not selling anything so a pretty pic will satisfy me - I don't need perfection.
Click to expand...

Just to add:- if anyone has a winning shot, you can always send the neg off to a lab and explain how you want the shot to look..well assuming the shot doesn't have too many faults e.g. buildings leaning over etc :eek:
 
StephenM said:
(which encouraged the habit of frequent saves).
Click to expand...


Frequent saves aren't a problem, it's multiple save/close/open cycles which can and do degrade quality. By all means save after every step, just avoid closing and reopening the file!
 
I don't seek perfection - just as good as I can possibly get it. My end product is the print, and, bluntly, I wouldn't get any fun or pleasure out of looking at a print and knowing that if I'd only done this, that or the other it would be better. I don't gain satisfaction from what I see as a botched or rushed job. If I was satisifed with that, I'd be using a digital compact and not worrying about framing at arms length!

I suppose it's down in part to early exhortations to be "as good as you can be" and a certain amount of scientific training that made me pay great attention to the minor details. Because oftentimes it's the supposedly "minor" details that have the major effect.

I've now made a couple of different stabs at adding to this post to "round it out" and explain a bit more; but really it's off topic so I've deleted the efforts. Ultimately, as a hobby, it's what we find fun; and I don't see the fun in being what I'd regard as second rate because I couldn't be bothered to go the extra mile. But note my end result is the print, not the process (or even the equipment used - although that can make things easy or hard and I choose the easy way); as I've said before, the fun comes in looking - first at the world around me, and then at the print that resulted from this. Everything in between - the consideration, the camera position, the exposure determination, the processing, scanning, Photoshop adjustments (or darkroom printing, in days gone by) is the boring but necessary steps I have to force myself to go through. Other priorities are available... :)
 
kendo1 said:
I'm easily satisfied :) Just some simple snaps.
Click to expand...

And that's fine - we all have what we consider an acceptable amount of energy & time to expend. Obviously some are not so easily satisfied, and find the post work at least as important as the original capture, often moreso. Personally I see the image from the camera as a starting point, rather than the picture almost finished.
 
Just AAMOI on saving a JPG and you lose detail? Well I viewed two old jpg files that I had scanned with the V750 one was 6645 X 8202px 32.5mb and one reduced 810 X 1000px 1.32mb and in Photoshop can't see the different in detail or colours..of course in the 1,32mb one you would get pixel breakup when enlarging..
Usually something is only as good as the weakest link, so maybe if I had a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier and a £800 pro monitor maybe I would see a difference..same goes for printing,and a pro printer would give best results. So if you are not going to use the darkroom with an excellent enlarging lens, you are never going to get the best out of the neg spending hours in PP if the input and output (e.g. printer) is the weakest link.
 
Last edited:
Well, ya know, we're all different, we've all got our own goals, intention and finished product.
I'm not interested in anything digital, a scan definitely isn't my starting point, I don't shoot for scans and that is reflected in the time and effort I'm prepared to put in to digital post, which is nothing really, doing the scan is effort enough.
Non of this, nor the scannerphile constant pixel measurement and compression comparisons is much help to the OP
 
joxby said:
Well, ya know, we're all different, we've all got our own goals, intention and finished product.
I'm not interested in anything digital, a scan definitely isn't my starting point, I don't shoot for scans and that is reflected in the time and effort I'm prepared to put in to digital post, which is nothing really, doing the scan is effort enough.
Non of this, nor the scannerphile constant pixel measurement and compression comparisons is much help to the OP
Click to expand...

Well the OP has already made his mind up about using tiff and compression etc So it's talk among yourselves time o_O :D
 
excalibur2 said:
Well the OP has already made his mind up about using tiff and compression etc So it's talk among yourselves time o_O :D
Click to expand...

:ROFLMAO:

the thread isn't about tif or jpg, it just migrated there....as usual..:rolleyes:
 
I don't use LR for my film shots, just Photoshop and Bridge for tagging/organising.

I use Capture One for most of my digital work though, I prefer it over LR for fine control over colour and contrast. Have you enabled TIFF editing in the settings?


Re: TIFF vs JPEG

TIFFs let you work in 16-bit which is far more flexible in post compared to the 8 bits you get with JPEG. Very important for smooth gradients once you start playing with curves/levels. Not to mention the lossless nature of it and the ability to save files with layers.
 
I'm clearly the dinosaur here, I still use Aperture! Thinking of moving to Capture 1, definitely not Lightroom!

On the subject of JPEG vs TIFF, there was a thread on this a while back. This post has examples of a TIFF (displayed as JPEG, sorry) before and after 10 open/close saves with Affinity Photo...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top