Photographer's Corner - equipment

[Walt34]

For starters, I liked Scott Kelby's Lightroom 5 book for digital photographers. It is aimed a first-time users but is very complete with step-by-step instructions i.e. "click here" with screen shots and an arrow pointing to the button. It is not a one or two day read. No good book on Lightroom will be.

Another good book is Victoria Bampton's Lightroom 5 the missing FAQ which as the title implies follows a Q&A format like, well, a FAQ. BTW, she also has a good forum at Lightroom Forums where one can post questions and get pretty good answers.

The heavyweight, if you want to get into every nook and cranny of the software, is Martin Evening's The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Book. It is excellent in completely covering the software and how to use it. Definitely not light reading though.

Having read all three I'd recommend Kelby's book first, then Bampton's, then Evening's. Or you may be satisfied with what you find in just Kelby's book.

 

[explanade]

I'm very lazy when it comes to post-processing.

Want to do the least amount possible. Arrived at a combination of settings, mostly for highlights and shadows, saved as preset and apply it universally for all pictures.

 

[Ronstar]

For starters, I liked Scott Kelby's Lightroom 5 book for digital photographers. It is aimed a first-time users but is very complete with step-by-step instructions i.e. "click here" with screen shots and an arrow pointing to the button. It is not a one or two day read. No good book on Lightroom will be.

Another good book is Victoria Bampton's Lightroom 5 the missing FAQ which as the title implies follows a Q&A format like, well, a FAQ. BTW, she also has a good forum at Lightroom Forums where one can post questions and get pretty good answers.

The heavyweight, if you want to get into every nook and cranny of the software, is Martin Evening's The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 Book. It is excellent in completely covering the software and how to use it. Definitely not light reading though.

Having read all three I'd recommend Kelby's book first, then Bampton's, then Evening's. Or you may be satisfied with what you find in just Kelby's book.

+1 on Scott Kelby's book. I also took a 5 night class at a junior college that was very helpful

 

[Chuckanut]

Thanks for the Lightroom book suggestions. I will be picking one up very soon. There is so much more to LR than I first imagined.

Second question: Do you save your images in their original RAW or JPG format, or do you convert them to Adobe's DNG format? Or another format?

I keep my Nikon images in the Nikon RAW format that came out of the camera. I figure that Nikon is big enough that future RAW processors will honor its RAW files. But I have images from an older Minolta A7 (great little 8 mp camera) that I am unsure about, so I converted them to DNG as I am not sure that the RAW files of a smaller company may be honored a decade from now.

After doing a few tests and a lot of pixel peeping, I can find no loss of quality when converting to the DNG format. So, I am thinking why not convert everything to DNG which is an open format, whose specs are public.

What do you do?

 

[explanade]

DNG is an Adobe format, used mainly by their software.

You could convert them but if Adobe goes to an all subscription plan, including Lightroom, then you may have to pay them monthly/yearly to be able to use the software that could open them.

Well unless you stay with the current standalone software.

I keep them in NEF, the Nikon format. I haven't really used Lightroom heavily though, instead using Aperture, the Apple software.

 

[meierlde]

A question does lightroom do .psd? (The default Photoshop and Elements format). If so if you save in that format there are both psd viewers here is a link to one that will convert if need be FREE PSD File Viewer - PSD Viewer 3.2 and an article that tells 3 ways to open without photoshop or elements: How to Open .PSD Extension Files without Installing Adobe Photoshop | Tech Salsa

So it would seem if you use .psd files and Adobe makes you mad for some reason, then with .psd files you can still recover them.

 

[walkinwood]

A question does lightroom do .psd? (The default Photoshop and Elements format). If so if you save in that format there are both psd viewers here is a link to one that will convert if need be FREE PSD File Viewer - PSD Viewer 3.2 and an article that tells 3 ways to open without photoshop or elements: How to Open .PSD Extension Files without Installing Adobe Photoshop | Tech Salsa

So it would seem if you use .psd files and Adobe makes you mad for some reason, then with .psd files you can still recover them.

DNG is a pre-processed image file like the RAW proprietary files - sort of like a digital negative. That's different from a psd file if I understand it correctly.

 

[meierlde]

DNG is a pre-processed image file like the RAW proprietary files - sort of like a digital negative. That's different from a psd file if I understand it correctly.

In Elements a .psd file allows you to undo over sessions and the like it is uncompressed so its somewhat bigger than a tiff file.

 

[Walt34]

A question does lightroom do .psd? (The default Photoshop and Elements format).

Lightroom does view .psd files and exports into the file format of your choice. A key thing to know about Lightroom is that it never, ever, changes the original file in any way. Any "changes" you make to a file are stored in the database (the "catalog" as they call it) and then displayed with those changes showing. One mouse click will revert to the original if you want. And any changes you make in Lightroom are non-destructive and completely reversible since the original file remains untouched.

Re the other question, I convert to DNG upon import into Lightroom. They are slightly smaller than the NEF files and since DNG is open source I figure there will always be something to open them with. At least until I die and then I won't care.

 

[Ronstar]

I import the raw photo files using Lightroom and it stores the raw files where I specify in Lightroom. Then I tweak the exposure, etc. I generally don't create an export photo, but when I do, I create a jpg.

 

[mathjak107]

Filters, for the most part, seem a waste of money, as the effects can be done in post processing on the computer. Or iPad...

Does she want to photograph objects? A small product table, scraps of different color cloth for backgrounds,

you can't duplicate the effects of either density filters or polarizes after the fact.

 

[mathjak107]

"In the higher end DSLRs like the Nikon D800 pixel densities are now pushing up close to what used to be only for medium format cameras."

Which means the medium formats are pushing up even higher and better lol.

Again, I'm a bit out of date with which digital densities can produce what type of quality - but I will always accept bigger is better. Bigger may not always be necessary, but it's better to have the potential and not use it, than to not have it and need it.

IMO.

more and more i have been using our little fuji x100s as it is the best people and travel camera i ever owned.

but when it comes to wildlife i use every megapixel my 36mp nikon d800 can muster.

the reason is because of distance i have to crop so tight.

i use a d800 with 70-200mm f2.8 and my wife a d7000 and 18-300mm.

by the time we get the image we want we crop away huge amounts of pixels.

we had a blast doing street photography yesterday with that little fuji.

 

[mathjak107]

Sesq,
I have a Nikon DSLR (D90). One of my favorite lenses is Nikon's 35mm f/1.8 lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX). It costs just under $200. It's great for low light photography.

Would she be interested in taking close up photos of things like flowers and insects? If so, consider a macro lens. I like my Nikon 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro. It's priced a bit higher than your range, but it's nice! I've heard that the Tamron macro lenses are nice, too, but I haven't used one.

i had two complaints about my tamron macro before i got the nikon 105mm vr.

one is the lens was a terrible match for the r1c1 macro flash because the lens moves in and out. 2 was it didn't work so well in auto focus with extension tubes.

although the reason is proprietary nikon has additional pins on it which may have something to do with it.

more often than not we could not get the tamron to autofocus well with the tubes.

eventually sold it for the nikon and no issues. .

 

[photoguy]

After doing a few tests and a lot of pixel peeping, I can find no loss of quality when converting to the DNG format. So, I am thinking why not convert everything to DNG which is an open format, whose specs are public.

What do you do?

I keep everything in RAW (nikon NEF and canon CR2) with a rendered tiff master (for select images). Some camera systems have digital corrections (e.g. to correct issues with a specific lens) built into their converter so if you want to use that you probably need the original raw. Note that lightroom also has some digital corrections but I doubt these are as good as the manufacturer's. You may also prefer the color rendering of the manufacturer's converter. Personally I find lightroom rendering and corrections work well enough that I rarely use another converter (manufacturer's or DxO).

If my RAW files stop being supported, I figure I'll have several years to migrate (bulk convert) them to DNG or whatever appears to be the best option at the time.

Another reason I don't like DNG is they do not support sidecar files. Instead of generating a sidecar (.xmp file) with the edits, Lightroom will write these into the DNG file itself. This may cause issues with incremental backups. However this is a small issue, and only relevant if you write metadata to disk instead of keeping it in the catalog.

 

[mathjak107]

it is funny ,i like dng just because i don't have to worry about sidecar files when exporting to different software. i write everything into the dng.

 

[photoguy]

Yeah the DNG sidecar issue is particular to each person's workflow. For me, I'd rather have the option to keep it separate but I can see how keeping everything to together can be more convenient.

 

[seraphim]

Nice photos mathjak.

Most of my shots with the D200 use the 10-24 lens. Don't do a lot of cropping. 36mp would be nice lol. I've considered upgrading the camera, but want to keep using the Nikon lenses. Mostly, I can't justify spending the money, and I'm generally pretty good at that lol.

I've gotten lazy and use the iPhone for street photography. It's so darn easy.

I need to back into photography, since I'm retired. I'll stick to what I have for now, until I figure out what I really.

 

[mathjak107]

thanks

 

[seraphim]

Darn it - I've been checking out D800 prices all day, now...

 

[Walt34]

Darn it - I've been checking out D800 prices all day, now...

Yeah, I had to look too. Gulp! Maybe if I can convince DW that family photos would be "so much better!" with that and a couple of fast lenses than the D7000....

 

[Chuckanut]

Darn it - I've been checking out D800 prices all day, now...

Hang the D800 around your neck with a high quality fast lens attached (so you can take advantage of those 36 megapixels). Walk around for a few hours. You may find the combo less tempting.

Of course, my photographic style makes smaller lighter equipment more desirable. YMMV.

 

[explanade]

I'm hoping Nikon makes something like an A7R, so you have FX sensor and Nikkor lenses in a small package.

Only problem is that such a product would take sales away from the bigger Nikons.

 

[Chuckanut]

I'm hoping Nikon makes something like an A7R, so you have FX sensor and Nikkor lenses in a small package.

Sony's smaller full frame cameras have the same problem: the lenses must be a certain size to cover the frame. OTOH, 4/3 sensors use much smaller lenses. My 45mm f/1.8 Olympus lens is the equivalent of 90mm in full frame. Such a fast, high quality lens in full frame would be much larger.

Different tools for different uses.

 

[mathjak107]

Hang the D800 around your neck with a high quality fast lens attached (so you can take advantage of those 36 megapixels). Walk around for a few hours. You may find the combo less tempting.

Of course, my photographic style makes smaller lighter equipment more desirable. YMMV.

no question it is on the heavy side. i always use a monopod when i take the 70-200mm f2.8 and d800 just for the weight.

but we have both the d800 and d7000 and weight wise there isn't much difference when you are carrying it. with heavy lenses they both get uncomfortable after a while.

shooting our fuji x100s is a world of difference weight wise and a pleasure to take. but it isn't for everything.

.

 

[Walt34]

After my last post I went to talk to DW about the D800. She took one look at me and said "what do you want to buy?" Didn't fall for the the "family photos would be so much better" line.

In July we'll have been married 26 years so she pretty much has me pegged. Oh well, it was worth a try.