Posts for: dhowland
Nov 20, 2017 14:37:00 #
jamesl wrote:
I bought Luminar 2018 too, and so far I really like it too.
Are you a Mac or PC user?
Nov 20, 2017 14:31:14 #
Me!! I have a k3 and K1 and my kids have my old k5. I started with a Pentax k1000 (brown body with split-screen focus) that I bought used before my first photo class in college, and I still have that beautiful thing. My husband's old camera is a Pentax ME super, which he had before we ever met. I love my Pentaxes and feel that they've provided great value for the money compared to those other brands soaking up all the attention, and my dslrs have the added advantage of easily taking my old vintage lenses. so yeah... !
Nov 15, 2017 15:39:25 #
sandersonjack15 wrote:
It’s nice to hear the Pentax people for a change
thank you
Nov 15, 2017 11:49:44 #
Especially considering your desire for "tough" I would stick with Pentax. I love my Pentax DSLRs and I agree that the full-frame is a dream. I got lucky and found it barely used on ebay. If you have good money leftover I'd get the Pentax 77mm prime -- fast and beautiful lens.
Nov 14, 2017 11:22:26 #
It's so weird because it reads to me so much like a net, physically between you and the subjects. good luck figuring it out!
Nov 13, 2017 12:12:27 #
CaptainC wrote:
Good grief-if you shoot raw it is always non destructive as you cannot change a raws file. You can change the way is is processed, but the underlying file is unchanged. Non-destructive editing is more hype than real.
Jeez some of you guys are grumpy on this topic, huh?
Please keep in mind that your comments reveal a lack of appreciation of how extremely easy Lightroom and now some of its rivals have made it to retain the original RAW image data, without expending time and effort. Some of us contemplating a switch from Lightroom find this to be an essential aspect of any replacement -- and they're not all necessarily non-destructive in the way we've come to appreciate in Lightroom.
I for one am grateful for the question and (most of) the answers found here.
Nov 13, 2017 11:53:19 #
Not sure this helps you in your personal process, but you can adjust your viewfinder to your vision so that you see your shot and whatever is slated to show up in the frame (your white balance etc) is in focus.
Nov 13, 2017 11:30:05 #
Mark1948 wrote:
Is Luminar non-destructive?
The answer is yes. Thanks for the question.
https://macphun.com/luminar/compare
Nov 13, 2017 11:19:05 #
leftj wrote:
Then you obviously can't comprehend.
okaaay ... you seem nice.
In any case, for those focused on the question at hand: So far the process in Luminar sounds cumbersome. Lightroom just leaves the original RAW files alone, no renaming or copying etc. In Luminar, does it have to be as cumbersome as what people are describing or does it have Lightroom-like functionality? If not, that's a big plus for Lightroom in my book.
Nov 13, 2017 11:09:41 #
I'm interested in the answer to this question as well. I don't simply want an opportunity to "revert" but to have the RAW files left alone as in Lightroom. Interested to hear what the answer that is ... so far not hearing it definitively ...
Nov 4, 2017 10:46:48 #
RichardTaylor wrote:
What's reality?
Does a B&W image reflect reality?
To me it is an artistic decision.
Does a B&W image reflect reality?
To me it is an artistic decision.
This. Various color films also had different levels of saturation. Not sure that any photo can claim to be a full picture of reality.
Nov 3, 2017 15:29:06 #
whitewolfowner wrote:
Why in the world would you spend X number of dollars on a camera and then turn around and make it deliver like the quality of a camera that is worth way less.
not very helpful but at least you were nice about it
Nov 3, 2017 07:20:08 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
Sorry, I wasn’t clear: it’s not a jpeg v raw choice; it’s a jpeg “fine” v jpeg “low”. Different cameras call it different things. When submitting any image for publication or email, I can reduce the size. No other processing required. So my comment stands: why would one start with a low res set of images unless the intent is to capture the most images on each individual card?
Ah, yes, sorry -- and true. Better to start with what you might need and reduce later if/when you don't need it.
Nov 3, 2017 06:29:28 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
The only reason (that I can think of) that you would intentionally reduce image quality before post-processing is this: you are in a situation where you have one card, limited memory, and the prospect that you might fill that card shooting at a higher resolution. Otherwise, I don’t understand why you would buy a Ferrari to haul fertilizer.
That assumes post-processing. If you're getting what you want right out of the camera, jpgs would be fine (no pun intended).
Nov 3, 2017 06:11:06 #
I opt for the highest/finest when I shoot jpg-only, which I do more of with my Fuji because its images please me right out of the camera. BTW here's a pitch for jpg-only ... nice argument, I thought. And maybe the answer to my Lightroom conundrum! http://danbaileyphoto.com/blog/3-reasons-why-i-recommend-shoot-jpeg-instead-of-raw/?utm_content=bufferf87a5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer