OH GOD

[Shannacore]

lul

http://i56.tinypic.com/2qvbgwh.jpg

[Braveguard]

I see the resemblance.

[Shannacore]

She even has a nose ring. Now if I could give her tattoos we would be twins.

[Yinaltin]

she is fat !

[Rogean]

I'm curious as to why you posted this in R&F as opposed to say Screenshots or Off-topic. It's as if you expect to be flamed!

[Shannacore]

. It's as if you expect to be flamed!

Truth

[HippoNipple]

Yeah total cry out for attention. She likes the abuse!

[yt2005]

So what's the deal with Lightroom, anyways? How does it compare with Photoshop? Are there any features that make Lr better than Ps, or is it just Ps-lite for photo editing? Is the user interface at least geared more towards photo-editing?

[Itchybottom]

So what's the deal with Lightroom, anyways? How does it compare with Photoshop? Are there any features that make Lr better than Ps, or is it just Ps-lite for photo editing? Is the user interface at least geared more towards photo-editing?

They're different products. You can do everything in Photoshop, but Lightroom is just the beginning of photo processing workflow, with library integration and some shitty scripts (like being able to compress/archive your workflow). It's for people who don't have the skill, and/or time for a real postprocessing suite. RAW processing is leaps and bounds better in Photoshop. I think though that grandma with holiday photos, would probably make more sense of Lightroom. Elements, is the middle man between Lightroom and Photoshop. Lightroom is the "sorting" end of the spectrum, Elements is the "consumer post-processing" and Photoshop is the "do-it-all". Then of course there is Adobe Bridge, is which their file browser and has all sorts of quirks (like not being able to export RAW data from Lightroom to Bridge, but you can export RAW data from Photoshop to Bridge ... yeah, whatever that's all about)

The user interface [of Lightroom], is counter-intuitive compared to competing products. Aperture is easier to use and Silkypix, even though horrible, is better laid out and comes free as postprocessing software with a lot of cameras.

[hedbonker]

I like pie.

[fishingme]

eww, holy spec = lame along with ur gearrr

[azeth]

Tralina who are "Tony" and "asshole" (?) on AIM?

[Yinaltin]

she still is fat on that pic ! noone else sees that ??

[fishingme]

she still is fat on that pic ! noone else sees that ??

ahh, I see it

[Shannacore]

They're different products. You can do everything in Photoshop, but Lightroom is just the beginning of photo processing workflow, with library integration and some shitty scripts (like being able to compress/archive your workflow). It's for people who don't have the skill, and/or time for a real postprocessing suite. RAW processing is leaps and bounds better in Photoshop. I think though that grandma with holiday photos, would probably make more sense of Lightroom. Elements, is the middle man between Lightroom and Photoshop. Lightroom is the "sorting" end of the spectrum, Elements is the "consumer post-processing" and Photoshop is the "do-it-all". Then of course there is Adobe Bridge, is which their file browser and has all sorts of quirks (like not being able to export RAW data from Lightroom to Bridge, but you can export RAW data from Photoshop to Bridge ... yeah, whatever that's all about)

The user interface [of Lightroom], is counter-intuitive compared to competing products. Aperture is easier to use and Silkypix, even though horrible, is better laid out and comes free as postprocessing software with a lot of cameras.

This is mostly accurate. I like Lightroom because it's hella easy for me to sort my photos. And for this class I'm taking, she prefers us to submit our assignments via "Catalogs" that you can easily create in Lightroom. So I'll import the photos, and do the super basic touchups. Lightroom and Photoshop work hand and hand, you can throw photos between the two programs really easily, so if need be I'll then slide the photos to Photoshop to do whatever else needs to be done. Then back to lightroom for catalog organization. I really like lightroom. I've grown to be really familiar with it, so whatever processing I can do in it, I prefer to do there rather than photoshop.

[hedbonker]

5D MKII 4tw

[Messianic]

5D MKII 4tw

You like pie

[Shannacore]

5D MKII 4tw

Will hopefully be getting a very very nice Nikon soon. I've always rocked Canons, but I've recently been exposed to the loveliness a Nikon can really do.

[hedbonker]

I have been a Nikon user since 1974. Dyed in the wool. I have about 13 Nikon lenses. After I saw what the 5D MkII could do with a 20 dollar adapter to put my Nikkor glass on this full frame sensor, it was a complete no brainer especially at $2.5K. Moreover, the video capabilities of the 5D are unmatched. Just stunning filmic results. Consider this, shot on the 5D by a friend of mine:

http://www.vimeo.com/10570139

[Abacab niggah]

Tralina, wanna heal for my 3's?

[Shannacore]

Tralina, wanna heal for my 3's?

YES, I DO.

[Yinaltin]

this is no cool thread anymore

[Ridic]

Who uses AIM anymore? honestly. I used it when I was.. 13?

[hedbonker]

Who uses a car anymore? Honestly, I used it when I was... 16?

[girth]

Yay old wow pics. My turn.

http://oi56.tinypic.com/23lfea8.jpg

[Shannacore]

'cept that pic wasn't old, it was FRESH FROM TODAY, GIRTH!

[thxer]

Points for female dwarf priest. Represent!

[hedbonker]

Girth is new~

[Ronas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_iOTBTyupc

[Shannacore]

Who uses AIM anymore? honestly. I used it when I was.. 13?

Pretty sure a lot of people use AIM~

[girth]

'cept that pic wasn't old, it was FRESH FROM TODAY, GIRTH!

Who still plays WoW? Eww that's not even beta...

[Itchybottom]

Yay derail!

5D Mk II is an okay camera; the low light performance video performance are pretty good but not GREAT at that price range. You get into the realm of real cameras, like Sigma and Leica at that range. Leica X1 with a nice prime, is about as good as it gets for stock photography and portraits. If you want video, the Sony NEX-VG10 is cheap enough and performs better.

Having owned a Nikon D70 for quite a while, and a lot of Nikkor VR lenses, I can definitely say go Sony or Pentax for the in body stabilization. Sub-$2000, the only Canon offering that stands out is the T2i in my mind. It's autofocusing is stellar, but the sensor on the camera itself really isn't that a step up from a Pentax K-x, or a Sony A-550. Also pay close attention to the newer micro 4/3rds offerings like the Sony NEX-5. Sony NEX-5 + beercan lens == walkaround bliss. I've been tempted by the NEX-3/NEX-5 offerings for weeks after holding one. The Samsung TL500/EX1, is also a decent camera for ISO800 as a point and shoot option, and it has some really fast glass on it.

The real problem with the DSLR market in my opinion is the kit lenses. Olympus, has without a doubt the best kit glass in the consumer region, but the sensors on the E-620, and even E-30 are just too noisy >1600 ISO. That means you'll end up spending thousands of dollars on a decent 1.8-2.4 lens, to get useable low light results at F5/ISO800 for things like sports events. Pentax's 55-300 (rebadged Tamron) is a fantastic piece of glass (in the dual K-x kit), but the 18-55 is horrible wide open - soft around the edges, not particularly sharp. Of course this is remedied by throwing that 18-55 on eBay and picking up a 1.4 or 1.8 prime used for macro/portrait. None of Canon's kit lenses for the T1i/T2i/XS/XSi are worth it in the long term of ownership either. Nikon's kit lenses that come with the D3000 and D5000 suck pretty bad as well. The 18-105 that comes with the D90 is "okay", but it's in the same league as the Sony kit lenses, which aren't as stellar as they should be, quite a bit of chromatic aberration compared to even budget Sigma/Tamron glass from other manufacturer offerings.

I'm going with the Pentax K-r as soon as it releases in the regular retail chains. It's going to be the biggest money sink I've had in a while, because I'm going to have to buy all new lenses (weather resistant variety) but for living in Washington state, that might be a blessing. It's bothersome walking around with my D70 in a ziplock bag with the glass sticking out the end; accessing the dials can be a chore. It'll also be nice to actually take a camera out on the ocean for a change and use it, rather than it hiding in my bag for the entire trip.

[girth]

Girth is new~

Blast from the past dude, remember this sexy beast?

http://oi51.tinypic.com/2uy0sd4.jpg

[hedbonker]

Yay derail!

5D Mk II is an okay camera; the low light performance video performance are pretty good but not GREAT at that price range. You get into the realm of real cameras, like Sigma and Leica at that range. Leica X1 with a nice prime, is about as good as it gets for stock photography and portraits. If you want video, the Sony NEX-VG10 is cheap enough and performs better.

Having owned a Nikon D70 for quite a while, and a lot of Nikkor VR lenses, I can definitely say go Sony or Pentax for the in body stabilization. Sub-$2000, the only Canon offering that stands out is the T2i in my mind. It's autofocusing is stellar, but the sensor on the camera itself really isn't that a step up from a Pentax K-x, or a Sony A-550. Also pay close attention to the newer micro 4/3rds offerings like the Sony NEX-5. Sony NEX-5 + beercan lens == walkaround bliss. I've been tempted by the NEX-3/NEX-5 offerings for weeks after holding one. The Samsung TL500/EX1, is also a decent camera for ISO800 as a point and shoot option, and it has some really fast glass on it.

The real problem with the DSLR market in my opinion is the kit lenses. Olympus, has without a doubt the best kit glass in the consumer region, but the sensors on the E-620, and even E-30 are just too noisy >1600 ISO. That means you'll end up spending thousands of dollars on a decent 1.8-2.4 lens, to get useable low light results at F5/ISO800 for things like sports events. Pentax's 55-300 (rebadged Tamron) is a fantastic piece of glass (in the dual K-x kit), but the 18-55 is horrible wide open - soft around the edges, not particularly sharp. Of course this is remedied by throwing that 18-55 on eBay and picking up a 1.4 or 1.8 prime used for macro/portrait. None of Canon's kit lenses for the T1i/T2i/XS/XSi are worth it in the long term of ownership either. Nikon's kit lenses that come with the D3000 and D5000 suck pretty bad as well. The 18-105 that comes with the D90 is "okay", but it's in the same league as the Sony kit lenses, which aren't as stellar as they should be, quite a bit of chromatic aberration compared to even budget Sigma/Tamron glass from other manufacturer offerings.

I'm going with the Pentax K-r as soon as it releases in the regular retail chains. It's going to be the biggest money sink I've had in a while, because I'm going to have to buy all new lenses (weather resistant variety) but for living in Washington state, that might be a blessing. It's bothersome walking around with my D70 in a ziplock bag with the glass sticking out the end; accessing the dials can be a chore. It'll also be nice to actually take a camera out on the ocean for a change and use it, rather than it hiding in my bag for the entire trip.

I work on commercials so not so concerned with the still capabilities of the 5D so much I suppose. I have intercut 5D footage with Eastman 7242 stock seamlessly. To me, that's impressive. Especially with a $2500 camera. At that price it is cheaper to buy 5 of them and throw them away after a shoot then to rent an Arri 35BL or Panavision Millennium for a week.

Add to that a sensor size that is the same as Vistavision and you really have something of interest. Enough so that the last episode of House MD for last season was shot entirely on the 5D. They normally shoot on film.

The ability to use Zeiss CL or Primo Primes just makes it that much more attractive. For personal use, I have a D70 collecting dust. The full sized sensor just blows that camera out of the water.

[hedbonker]

Blast from the past dude, remember this sexy beast?

http://oi51.tinypic.com/2uy0sd4.jpg

Course I remember you, silly monk :)

[hedbonker]

Oh - and Leica X1 cannot even come CLOSE to this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/617782-REG/Hasselblad_70380560_H3DII_31_Digital_SLR_Camera.ht ml

[Messianic]

Camera which pwns you (http://www.partymakerdiscountmegastore.com/products/Pinatas/849.html)

[hedbonker]

Pinata cameras are like SO last year.

[Messianic]

Pinata cameras are like SO last year.

Which of your fancy XM-5000 or whatever cameras drops small bags of skittles and starkists when you smack it with a bat?

Boo-ya!

[Messianic]

Which of your fancy XM-5000 or whatever cameras drops small bags of skittles and starkists when you smack it with a bat?

Boo-ya!

Starbursts even. Darnit.

[Shannacore]

Which of your fancy XM-5000 or whatever cameras drops small bags of skittles and starkists when you smack it with a bat?

Boo-ya!

http://www.buythecase.net/uploads/products/200/8000000673.jpg

???

[Shannacore]

Damn it, you beat me.

[Dantes]

BLAH BLAH BLAH. The make/model of your camera does not matter, it's how you use it. A photographer who sucks - still sucks with a Hasselblad. A DP who sucks - still sucks with a Red Camera. 5 years from now the technology will all change again anyway. Who gives a shit?

[Messianic]

Damn it, you beat me.

Lol, I was so expecting someone to get me on that...Darn mental flips, "because-im-at-work-and-not-doing-what-im-supposed-to-be-doing"

[hedbonker]

BLAH BLAH BLAH. The make/model of your camera does not matter, it's how you use it. A photographer who sucks - still sucks with a Hasselblad. A DP who sucks - still sucks with a Red Camera. 5 years from now the technology will all change again anyway. Who gives a shit?

Excellent contribution, Cpt. Obvious.

[Shannacore]

BLAH BLAH BLAH. The make/model of your camera does not matter, it's how you use it. A photographer who sucks - still sucks with a Hasselblad. A DP who sucks - still sucks with a Red Camera. 5 years from now the technology will all change again anyway. Who gives a shit?

Eh, I sort of agree with this. There are technical things certain cameras just can not do. But I do agree that not everyone can comprehend what looks good photographically. The composition of a photo is just as important as making sure the technical aspects add up.

[Messianic]

So...what's up with this srs conversation in R,F, & NSFW (formerly known as R & F)?

Srsly.

[guineapig]

Cameras are for newbs:

http://www.google.com/images?q=man%20ray%20Rayographs&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1246&bih=626

[Shannacore]

Cameras are for newbs:

http://www.google.com/images?q=man%20ray%20Rayographs&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1246&bih=626

I'm stoked to work with photograms next semester.

[hedbonker]

Eh, I sort of agree with this. There are technical things certain cameras just can not do. But I do agree that not everyone can comprehend what looks good photographically. The composition of a photo is just as important as making sure the technical aspects add up.

I do too, Tralina. Hence my obvious statement. I was talking about gear - Not technique or talent.

[hedbonker]

Consider this done on a iPhone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6amrKRmI1bI