The Photographers' Corner - 2021 to ?

[explanade]

I’m interested in noise reduction. I will have to look into it. Lightroom looks like it has some nice editing features but it tries to suck up and copy everything I open with it. Is there any simple way to avoid it’s primary file management function and just use it as a simple editor?

Doesn't copy anything. You import a directory or a single photo. It will be in the catalog file but it doesn't make a copy of it.

The non-destructive edits are stored in the catalog file and the RAW file is left untouched. It will save an .xmp file with all the edits you made.

Now, if you choose to convert it and save as a DNG, then it's saving an additional large file to the same directory as the source files, which could be on another volume.

 

[DrRoy]

I have gotten lost in the Photoshop online community trying to find the simplest info out so I am coming back here since I assume many of you use PS and may be able to explain why I can't get what I need out of it.

I decided to try a creative cloud membership because I want to use a number of PS features I see in Astrophotography YouTube video. I often use multiple levels and curves adjustments as I combine a variety of components, right now, for example, overlaying some narrowband data over a basic RGB image.

So now I am looking at an image that is just like I want it, nice crisp blacks, good color, blah blah. But, if I try to do anything with it, e.g flatten the layers, export to jpg, I get a reddish tint on the output instead of the colors I see in PS. It feels like PS is useless, if I can make nice images on screen but not use them.

Any thoughts for PS newbies on how to deal with this?

Edit: I will try to upload two screenshots, one from PS as I am working on it and the second as the same image if I flatten layers. Hopefully the tint change will come thru

I could see the difference. Perhaps you were in Adobe color, not RGB. I use RGB and have never seen this happen. Agree that the image size should not matter.

 

[donheff]

Doesn't copy anything. You import a directory or a single photo. It will be in the catalog file but it doesn't make a copy of it.

The non-destructive edits are stored in the catalog file and the RAW file is left untouched. It will save an .xmp file with all the edits you made.

Now, if you choose to convert it and save as a DNG, then it's saving an additional large file to the same directory as the source files, which could be on another volume.

That helps. Having never used LR before, I found it confusing as hell. When I saw it trying to suck up my images I was afraid it might move them, copy them, or otherwise screw up the hierarchy I am used to. But it is reassuring that LR is completing non-destructive edits. So, I can mess around with it and export anything I like.

You mentioned saving as a DNG which I had to look up. I have never dealt with RAW files. I'm primarily dealing with 32 bit fits files in astro-processing software and exporting as 16 bit tifs for photoshop edits. In Lightroom, can I convert to DNG and then edit it with RAW editing controls? I assume the file will be missing a lot of data that would exist in a camera RAW file?

 

[explanade]

That helps. Having never used LR before, I found it confusing as hell. When I saw it trying to suck up my images I was afraid it might move them, copy them, or otherwise screw up the hierarchy I am used to. But it is reassuring that LR is completing non-destructive edits. So, I can mess around with it and export anything I like.

You mentioned saving as a DNG which I had to look up. I have never dealt with RAW files. I'm primarily dealing with 32 bit fits files in astro-processing software and exporting as 16 bit tifs for photoshop edits. In Lightroom, can I convert to DNG and then edit it with RAW editing controls? I assume the file will be missing a lot of data that would exist in a camera RAW file?

I've not used TIFF that much.

But a modern camera RAW file will have things like lens corrections or metadata for doing them automatically.

DNG is a more portable format than TIFF.

So the main advantage is that if you convert to DNG, it may be accessible and editable by more programs.

Also I believe the file sizes would be smaller than TIFF, even though it's not lossy.

 

[JoeWras]

They are laying fiber in our neighborhood. I am inspired by these hard working young men, digging by hand in 110F "feels like" temp (actual temp 96). I just feel like this captures their herculean efforts today.

 

[Ronstar]

Cell phone pic at Glacier NP

 

[street]

Beautiful!! Thanks

 

[pacergal]

Ronstar--that is lovely!

 

[RetiriusMinimus]

Moving to Mirrorless..

Sold my D800 and picked up a Nikon z7 refurbished. Mainly for landscape, art, macro photography. I really like the lighter form factor, I loved the D800 and was going to get the 850….

I haven’t had much time to shoot but trying to make time to do so, it’s hard this time of year as I like to use my boat too…

 

[street]

Sold my D800 and picked up a Nikon z7 refurbished. Mainly for landscape, art, macro photography. I really like the lighter form factor, I loved the D800 and was going to get the 850….

I haven’t had much time to shoot but trying to make time to do so, it’s hard this time of year as I like to use my boat too…

That is a great capture!! Looking forward to more of your photos. Thank you.

 

[Ronstar]

Sold my D800 and picked up a Nikon z7 refurbished. Mainly for landscape, art, macro photography. I really like the lighter form factor, I loved the D800 and was going to get the 850….

I haven’t had much time to shoot but trying to make time to do so, it’s hard this time of year as I like to use my boat too…

Nice shot! Keep’em coming!

 

[Ronstar]

Ran into some moose at Glacier NP.

 

[aja8888]

Ran into some moose at Glacier NP.

Nice shots, Ron. What camera did you use to take these photos with?

 

[Ronstar]

Thanks - Nikon D850 with a Tamron 150-600mm lens.

 

[Walt34]

I was thinking when looking at the photos - "I sure hope he used a long lens!"

How do you like that Tameron lens in general? No blurriness at the edges, aberrations and the like?

 

[Ronstar]

^ I like the lens, but it is a little blurry around the edges in the lower f stops. So I normally try to shoot in good light at F8 or above. The auto focus is finicky. Tough to auto focus on a subject with a complicated background. Photos are usually a little noisy, but clean up pretty well with denoise in post. But it is the best big lens I could get for the price. Now $1400.

 

[explanade]

I was thinking when looking at the photos - "I sure hope he used a long lens!"

So don't get close to moose?

 

[Ronstar]

^ I was about 50’ from the moose in the top photo. Caught me by surprise because I didn’t see him until I got that close. I got the impression that i was getting too close. He quit chewing and just stared at me until I backed up.

 

[RetiriusMinimus]

@Ronstar the Nikon 200-500 is quite sharp, I found it sharper than the Tammy which I owned before. With f-mount lenses dropping like flies I’m waiting for a decently priced 600mm f/4. Right now they’re about $4K for a good used one…. I’ll wait..;’

 

[RetiriusMinimus]

Tried the blue moon at the Marina in town…but was cloudy… sigh

 

[street]

Great pictures Ronstar.

RetiriusMinimus, that is a post card picture.

 

[Gotadimple]

In Basel, Switzerland. The city gate and street in old town.

 

[RetiriusMinimus]

Thank you. Looking at it some more I’m pleased. I should have shot this at f/8 and a bit longer exposure for better depth of field. Was a 20sec exposure but on a rock solid Gitzo tripod.

Great pictures Ronstar.

RetiriusMinimus, that is a post card picture.

 

[Ronstar]

^Looks good to me.

In Basel, Switzerland. The city gate and street in old town.

Nice shot dimple!

 

[RetiriusMinimus]

Fountain Grass

We’ve planted these around, well, around our yard fountain…