Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Lightroom version 12 is a great update
Page <<first <prev 8 of 10 next> last>>
Oct 23, 2022 15:44:42   #
frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.
 
via the lens wrote:
Not sure what you mean by does not support layers natively? You do not consider the masking layers as layers? Just curious.


Connie, I used t to think that making used hidden layers. That they were the same thing, in a way. But I recently read an article that says otherwise.

It is here https://www.icelandaurora.com/phototutorials/guide-to/post-processing/layers-and-masks-photoshop-editing/#:~:text=A%20'Layer'%20and%20a%20',totally%20reveal%20the%20photo%20underneath

It sounds good, but, as a certified expert I ask your opinion, are they, and it's this article true. PS also has making within a layer, so it would seem they are different.

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 16:22:54   #
mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA
 
Vanderpix wrote:
...how you get there is up to you. And most people will not know if you used an old version of software or a new one. You must please you client if you are a pro and please yourself if you are hobbyist.

On these last words, we both agree.

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 16:29:43   #
Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey
 
mikeroetex wrote:
On these last words, we both agree.


👍👍😁

Reply
 
 
Oct 23, 2022 17:46:48   #
DICK32
 
CrazyJane wrote:
I'm surprised there's so little chatter on the Hog about the Lightroom v.12 update that's been rolling out this past week. The really mind-bending updates are to masking, which has new superpowers for selecting objects, people (and people's anatomy -- lips, eyes, face skin, hair, etc.), and backgrounds. These new mask selection types now complement sky and subject masking selections, as well as the existing masking tools and gradients. There's tremendous power in just this fragment of the v.12 update, not to mention all of the other updates.

Those of you wedded to the v.6 stand-alone are really missing the boat. I try hearing you when you say things like "... it meets my needs" and stuff like that, but that's like riding a horse to the store and saying "well, it get's me there 'n' back, dunn'it?" No offense intended, but you're stuck in 2015. Time to get back to the future. You just might find that you like it there. (Acourst it does cost a whopping .33 cents a day, so there's that big hit to consider.)
I'm surprised there's so little chatter on the Hog... (show quote)


JANE NOT SO CRAZY:
I haven't gotten into this update, but the previous LR update was great. It sounds like it will take our photos to the next level. Thanks for pointing this out.

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 18:26:34   #
Nigel7 Loc: Worcestershire. UK.
 
CrazyJane wrote:
I'm surprised there's so little chatter on the Hog about the Lightroom v.12 update that's been rolling out this past week. The really mind-bending updates are to masking, which has new superpowers for selecting objects, people (and people's anatomy -- lips, eyes, face skin, hair, etc.), and backgrounds. These new mask selection types now complement sky and subject masking selections, as well as the existing masking tools and gradients. There's tremendous power in just this fragment of the v.12 update, not to mention all of the other updates.

Those of you wedded to the v.6 stand-alone are really missing the boat. I try hearing you when you say things like "... it meets my needs" and stuff like that, but that's like riding a horse to the store and saying "well, it get's me there 'n' back, dunn'it?" No offense intended, but you're stuck in 2015. Time to get back to the future. You just might find that you like it there. (Acourst it does cost a whopping .33 cents a day, so there's that big hit to consider.)
I'm surprised there's so little chatter on the Hog... (show quote)


Completely agree. Whenever I hear photographers complaining about £10/month subscriptions I think back to what I used to spend on film and developing. Also, the latest Adobe CC programmes are light years ahead of the old "one off purchase" versions.

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 20:04:23   #
cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania
 
Vanderpix wrote:
And you are paying for it for the rest of your life as opposed to hardware which is usually upgraded when one can afford it. Make no mistake about the subscription model is great for the companies, who are always getting monthly money, but not so great for the consumer who has more and more bills added to their cost of living. Case in point, I have been using Adobe products for 20 years. Subscription based that would have cost me $2500. But because I upgraded only when needed I spent about $900. The House always wins!
And you are paying for it for the rest of your lif... (show quote)



Reply
Oct 23, 2022 20:08:21   #
cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania
 
mikeroetex wrote:
Do you still drive a 20 yr old car? Tried buying parts for it lately? The key phrase in your reply, "Affinity... so far." The day will come when you will have new camera files Affinity can not read. And they will invite you to subscribe to the new service that can.


Yes i do still drive a20 year old car, and the parts are cheaper and more readily available than for a new car. I'm aware that this is not the case for all cars, but it makes your argument moot (invalid)

Reply
 
 
Oct 23, 2022 20:18:18   #
mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA
 
cmc4214 wrote:
Yes i do still drive a20 year old car, and the parts are cheaper and more readily available than for a new car. I'm aware that this is not the case for all cars, but it makes your argument moot (invalid)


No, it just makes me wonder how you guys can afford the monthly internet bill to even access this board. I guess you are using a 33600 baud dial up modem.

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 20:24:24   #
cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania
 
mikeroetex wrote:
No, it just makes me wonder how you guys can afford the monthly internet bill to even access this board. I guess you are using a 33600 baud dial up modem.


YOU brought up the 20 year old car argument, now you say no?

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 21:16:25   #
Grahame Loc: Fiji
 
BigDaddy wrote:
Then why does Adobe include PS with LR. IF LR has the same, or superior editing capabilities, it would seem unnecessary to have the same, or lessor editor [PS] included in the package?


You seem to not understand the basic differences based upon your wording of "lessor".

LR and ACR are raw editors. For many LR/ACR will accomplish all they need to do. Think subjects such as sports photography where the photographer wants to retain things 'natural' where nothing more than exp/highlights/shadows (yes I know there's more available if wanted) are tweaked slightly.

PS is not a raw editor but it caters for the photographer that wants to add such things as motion blur or create and use such things as luminosity layers to achieve his artistic intent.

One is not "lessor" than the other, they cater for different uses.

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 21:45:10   #
fantom Loc: Colorado
 
mikeroetex wrote:
Most readers know that Joseph Cristina never let facts get in the way of an online click and bait. Sadly, you and BigDaddy are making assumptions and conclusions without full knowledge. Take some time to oull your heads out of the sand and read up. If you discontinue your subscription, you do not lose all your edits or jpegs. That's because they are never in LR, LR is a catalog that points to the files location and the edits are saved in a sidecar file. Since you are so fascinated by life 20 years ago, think of it as if someone removed the card from the Dewey Decimal system at the library. The card may be gone, but the book is still on the shelf. True, the Develop module stops, so you can not go back and re-edit or create new edits, but you don't lose previous work. It's still right there on your hard drive.
Most readers know that Joseph Cristina never let f... (show quote)



Reply
 
 
Oct 23, 2022 22:19:47   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
cmc4214 wrote:
Yes i do still drive a20 year old car, and the parts are cheaper and more readily available than for a new car. I'm aware that this is not the case for all cars, but it makes your argument moot (invalid)


There are junkyards that sell parts for old cars. Cheap.

And it is definitely true that parts availability varies between cars. I had a tractor that was manufactured between 1937 and 1954. I could still get new parts from the dealer in 2005. I had a different tractor that was made in 1987. When the engine died in 2012 parts were not available, even from a tractor junkyard.

The deal is: if a tractor is popular and used a lot it will be worth making spare parts for it. If it’s not popular or not used much, it’s not profitable to make or keep spare parts.

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 22:25:27   #
mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA
 
cmc4214 wrote:
YOU brought up the 20 year old car argument, now you say no?

No, as in I don't believe it make my argument any less valid.

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 22:27:28   #
Old Edmundo
 
Are the new masking properties also in camera Raw ?

Reply
Oct 23, 2022 23:12:31   #
bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA
 
mikeroetex wrote:
No, it just makes me wonder how you guys can afford the monthly internet bill to even access this board. I guess you are using a 33600 baud dial up modem.


My Comcast bill is $60 for the internet part. I keep searching for better. So far, nothing.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 10 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.